Jump to content

A question for allosexuals


neverlove

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Or one can define the attraction AS that draw.. it's what pulls you out the door to that club in the hopes of finding someone to lie with for the night or whatever. 

Exactly this. 

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

@Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) - I was really happy when I discovered my sexual and romantic feelings didn't fully merge when I started feeling sexually with my wife. I like forgetting about sex for a while sometimes and still being all touchy sappy romantic. 

Oh geez now I need to pay attention whether I'm able to do this. I don't think so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
4 minutes ago, CBC said:

Another member who's no longer active on the forums used to say that they didn't believe asexuality was an orientation for more or less that reason. Not meant in an invalidating way whatsoever, either; it's still very much a real thing. It's more just that people are hetero/homo/bi/pan/a (in terms of what I'll just call "attraction" in general) and that for asexual people, there's no sexual component to that attraction. In all honesty, I agree with that.

Most aces still have a (romantic) orientation though, so while asexuality may be a "lack of orientation" sexually, it's not a lack of orientation altogether (unless someone's also aro). 

 

Unless I'm reading that completely wrong, it's 2am and I'm trying to do three things at once.

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

Most aces still have a (romantic) orientation though, so while asexuality may be a "lack of orientation" sexually, it's not a lack of orientation altogether (unless someone's also aro). 

 

Unless I'm reading that completely wrong, it's 2am and I'm trying to do three things at once.

So, if you're homoromantic asexual, you'd just be "gay but no sex please." The point being that asexuality is a trait, an aspect of one's orientation, but not an orientation on its own. At least, that's how I read it. 

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

Ok so, I've been refraining from posting cos it's been pissing me off, but as a romantic ace, to me sensual attraction/desire/whatever has fuck all to do with sex. I have never wanted sex with my beau, never been aroused by him, and never done anything foreplay-y, but I most certainly kiss him, and snuggle, and lean on him. These are NOT sexual things, the fact I wouldn't do them with a kid doesn't make them so. I'm a very soppy romantic, but linking sex and love makes no sense to me and actively disgusts me. I know for a fact I'm not the only one that feels this way here and honestly, invalidating romantic aces on our own website is pretty shitty.

Some of the conversation was a continuation from another thread (ace terminology page two). Serran's description of kissing and snuggling sounded like it included a sexual reaction. It appears to have been her use of the word electric that was confusing. Could you please explain what was said that was invalidating? and why? I'm learning here, and just trying to figure things out.

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

Oh geez now I need to pay attention whether I'm able to do this. I don't think so. 

Haha I think most sexuals cant? Like... I could go a month being head over heels in love, cuddling for hours, kissing of all sorts and not think of sex. Just be blissfully sappy romantic. Though, I am being more mindful to foster my sexual desire more often since my wife has a high libido and doesn't like to ask me for sex even when she wants it. My sexuality has become weird. I can feel strong sexual desire, to the point of daily sex. I can feel no sexual desire and strong romantic feelings. I can kind of shut off sexual desire or ramp it up. It is very malleable ? Which, I know isn't how it works for most. But, I find it useful. I have like a switch between ace mode and sexual mode, rather than being stuck on either. :lol: So I dont get sexually frustrated when its been four months no sex with my wife... but I also love it when she wants it daily. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, neverlove said:

Sensual Attraction - When you're attracted so someone through your senses (other than looks). This may mean that you're attracted to the smell of a person or you want to be touched or hugged by a person.

I always understood sensual attraction (within the context of asexuality I mean) as a draw to be very intimate with another person without that actually leading to sex. That's how most sensual aces around here seem to experience it anyway (I had an ace ex who felt this very, very strongly. He loved kissing and stuff, but was horrified at the idea of the pants coming off because to him, genitals were for pissing and nothing more, lol. But aside from that he was very sensual and loved intimate contact.)

 

1 hour ago, neverlove said:

Sexual attraction - Seeing someone and not only finding them attractive, but thinking you'd like to have sex with them, like fantasies and such. It's attraction to another person that at it's end wants to be physically intimate, as opposed to being attracted to someone in a way where you think, "I'd like to get to know them" or "I want to be their best friend" or "I want to be close to that person".

For me (and many others) it's an underlying draw that causes you to want to be sexually intimate with another person, but the reasons for that, or what triggers it, can vary massively from person to person. It's only about appearance for some people, but I mean.. Like my thing I described above for Cumberbatch. The desire and 'sexual hunger' (lol) came with the respect and the relateablity.. but he's still funny-looking to me and is very much 'not my type' physically, haha.. But damn if he was single and up for it, I'd..well yeah, you know where this is going. And that's coming from someone who can't even experience pleasure when stimulated genitally by another person. I still have the 'want' inside my womb-area, past my genitals. ..and I would still enjoy the sex immensely even if being touched 'down there' by that other person can't actually physically get me off. The desire is still there , it's innate and deep inside and I can still have fun with it even if my genitals cannot be involved.   

 

Anyway all I'm trying to say is that if you're sexual, it doesn't have to be about appearance. It can just be about want - A desire to connect on a sexual level with another person for whatever reason: Be that love, need, loneliness, just a desire to get off, you like their laugh, they're kind to you, whatever. If one isn't a sexual person, then that desire for the sexual intimacy just wouldn't be there to begin with regardless of whether or not one finds others attractive or experiences romantic love or whatever.

 

tl;dr - Sexual attraction is the desire to connect on a sexual level with certain other people for varying reasons, to varying degrees. An asexual just doesn't experience that draw to connect sexually with others for pleasure (either sexual OR emotional pleasure, because it doesn't just have to be about the genitals).

 

Urgh I'm rambling so much because I'm procrastinating about cooking lunch Y_Y 

 

 

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

So what is sexual attraction anyway

Oh god. You opened a can of worms with that question. 😛

 

To me it is any draw to have sex with a person - general horniness causing a person to want sex and trusting their partner makes them choose them over anyone else ? Sexual attraction imo. The something that makes you choose who you choose for sexual interaction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
3 minutes ago, skullery said:

So, if you're homoromantic asexual, you'd just be "gay but no sex please." The point being that asexuality is a trait, an aspect of one's orientation, but not an orientation on its own. At least, that's how I read it. 

 

1 minute ago, CBC said:

I don't know that I could ever just be completely unaware of the fact that I have sexual feelings, like basically forget they exist while still being touchy-feely. I don't know how that could be possible if I feel sexual desire for someone. But I can certainly be close in a non-sexual way without getting super duper turned on and wanting to have sex.

 

Oh yeah definitely still have an orientation unless aro. For sure. What Skullz said. "I'm gay/straight/bi/pan but not into sex" would be all the various romantic asexual orientations and "I'm not into anyone" is aro-ace.

So you're putting sexuality and orientation on different axes? Incidentally that's how I've thought of it since I even knew it was a thing, so yes, I agree. My orientation is mecha, my sexuality is 0. I think for the purposes of visibility and pride etc. though, it's fine to have asexuality recognised as an orientation. Most people understand orientations easier than separate, intersecting axes.

 

1 minute ago, neverlove said:

Some of the conversation was a continuation from another thread (ace terminology page two). Serran's description of kissing and snuggling sounded like it included a sexual reaction. It appears to have been her use of the word electric that was confusing. Could you please explain what was said that was invalidating? and why? I'm learning here, and just trying to figure things out.

Yes, I've been reading the same threads. What has been pissing me off is the idea that any touch not acceptable with kids is sexual. It isn't, some of it is romantic because romance and sex are separate things; they have to be, because romantic aces exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CBC said:

It's more just that people are hetero/homo/bi/pan/a (in terms of what I'll just call "attraction" in general) and that for asexual people, there's no sexual component to that attraction. In all honesty, I agree with that.

I look at it like this.

 

You're either sexual or you're asexual.

 

Sexual people, on some level for varying reasons, desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure. Their 'orientation' is how they define which gender/s they desire/prefer to have sexual contact with/who they're drawn to sexually. So in the sexual category you have hetero/homo/bi/pan/yada yada. For all kinds of different reasons (be that appearance, romance, general horniness, whatever) sexual people desire to connect with certain other people on a sexual level, sometimes. 

 

Asexual people can still experience all the same feelings as sexual people (including romance and finding people attractive etc) BUT they never have that desire to connect on a sexual level with other people. That's where the 'A' in asexuality comes from. It means 'without': WITHOUT that desire to connect sexually with others (WITHOUT that thing that makes someone sexual).

 

Asexuals can still have romantic orientations and be drawn to certain other people etc, there's just never a sexual component to any of them for that, hence why they're asexual. An asexual does not have a sexual orientation though, because the term 'sexual orientation' means: the gender/s you desire to connect sexually with. If you're not sexual, you don't have that sexual aspect of orientation because you don't want to bang anyone :P 

 

I don't know if that made any sense. I'm hungry but lazy at the same time Y_Y

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

 

 

Yes, I've been reading the same threads. What has been pissing me off is the idea that any touch not acceptable with kids is sexual. It isn't, some of it is romantic because romance and sex are separate things; they have to be, because romantic aces exist.

Yeah... so either romantic ace can't exist or its OK to be romantic with kids is how I read it too. Cause to be romantic has to be sexual by that argument... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

I look at it like this.

 

You're either sexual or you're asexual.

 

Sexual people, on some level for varying reasons, desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure. Their 'orientation' is how they define which gender/s they desire/prefer to have sexual contact with/who they're drawn to sexually. So in the sexual category you have hetero/homo/bi/pan/yada yada. For all kinds of different reasons (be that appearance, romance, general horniness, whatever) sexual people desire to connect with certain other people on a sexual level, sometimes. 

 

Asexual people can still experience all the same feelings as sexual people (including romance and finding people attractive etc) BUT they never have that desire to connect on a sexual level with other people. That's where the 'A' in asexuality comes from. It means 'without': WITHOUT that desire to connect sexually with others (WITHOUT that thing that makes someone sexual).

 

Asexuals can still have romantic orientations and be drawn to certain other people etc, there's just never a sexual component to any of them for that, hence why they're asexual. An asexual does not have a sexual orientation though, because the term 'sexual orientation' means: the gender/s you desire to connect sexually with. If you're not sexual, you don't have that sexual aspect of orientation because you don't want to bang anyone :P 

 

I don't know if that made any sense. I'm hungry but lazy at the same time Y_Y

...Okay...so that explains a general wish to be in a sexual relationship (which I have) but then I have never felt a desire to sleep with an individual, even if I could pick a celebrity of my choice I wouldn't have anyone I'd want...

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

...Okay...so that explains a general wish to be in a sexual relationship (which I have) but then I have never felt a desire to sleep with an individual, even if I could pick a celebrity of my choice I wouldn't have anyone I'd want...

What about a friend you trust ? Or a committed partner if you had one ? Would you pick them ? 

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

What about a friend you trust ? Or a committed partner if you had one ? Would you pick them ?

Only if I absolutely had to sleep with someone, I have a friend, but I might end up sick afterwards...or during.

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

Pretty much, yeah. Have an innate drive to have sex with people for your own enjoyment/fulfilment (physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual, literally whatever you get out of it)? You're sexual. Don't have that drive? Asexual.

 

Who do you innately desire to form relationships with in a non-platonic way (whatever that means for you, inclusive of sex or not)? The answer is your orientation.

So this is what confuses me. I have an innate desire for sex, but no one I'd want a romantic connection with. Does that just make me an aromantic heterosexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
1 minute ago, neverlove said:

So this is what confuses me. I have an innate desire for sex, but no one I'd want a romantic connection with. Does that just make me an aromantic heterosexual?

That's what it sounds like to me, but honestly I'm really confused by much of what you're saying (in a non-judgemental way).

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

What has been pissing me off is the idea that any touch not acceptable with kids is sexual. It isn't, some of it is romantic because romance and sex are separate things; they have to be, because romantic aces exist.

(in answer to whoever said that, lol)

 

Fucking ridiculous!!!!

 

What makes something actually sexual is whether or not you intend it to lead to some form of partnered genital stimulation/orgasm. If a romantic couple lay in bed french kissing all night, but didn't take their pants off nor have any kind of orgasm (they just had fun with the kissing) they wouldn't actually say they had sex and didn't have sex by societies standards either, but that's CERTAINLY not something you'd ever do with a kid 😧 

 

But there are also things you do with your kids that you probably also wouldn't do with anyone else EXCEPT a romantic/sexual partner, and would be illegal/harassment with a non-consenting adult; like bathing them/bathing together with them. Your baby sucks your actual boobs (which is very sexual in other circumstances). You hug and kiss your kids literally all the time. You say 'I love you' to your kids a lot. You actually have to clean their arses until they can do it themselves. Generally the only other time you'd do any of that shit is if you're actually fucking someone, haha (and cleaning their butt would only be if you're both into that, lol).

 

 :P 

 

15 minutes ago, neverlove said:

so that explains a general wish to be in a sexual relationship (which I have) but then I have never felt a desire to sleep with an individual, even if I could pick a celebrity of my choice I wouldn't have anyone I'd want...

It kind of sounds to me like you just haven't met someone you feel connected to on the 'right' level, if you do want a sexual relationship but just haven't had that desire with anyone specific yet :o I have never met a person in 'real life' who I wanted to screw, and even in my online life, there's only been 1-2ish people in my 30 years, and one celebrity. And also for me, there's no desire OUTSIDE of having those emotions for that specific person. So like, when I'm not interested in someone specific, I couldn't care less about sex, never think about it, and am very happy to not be having it!!! So you're one up on me in that you actually WANT sex, it's just a matter of finding someone you like enough in the 'right' way to actually want to bang them :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, neverlove said:

I have an innate desire for sex, but no one I'd want a romantic connection with. Does that just make me an aromantic heterosexual?

You don't have to have a romantic connection, you just have to like them in the 'right' way, and when that happens, it all kind of 'clicks'. I didn't experience that feeling for the first time until I was 27 (even though I'd had romantic relationships prior to that)!! It's extremely difficult for me to be able to develop the right kind of feelings for someone (romantic or not) which make me able to actually consider them someone I would have sex with. However I identify as sexual because I know I'm capable of wanting it under very rare circumstances with specific other people. 

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

If you have a desire for sex with people of the opposite sex and no ability to connect emotionally in a non-platonic way with anyone at all, then yep.

And then I just tack on that I've never been sexually attracted to an individual and that I'm not interested in that changing

 

5 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

That's what it sounds like to me, but honestly I'm really confused by much of what you're saying (in a non-judgemental way).

That's fine, I'm pretty confused by what I'm feeling.

 

2 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

You don't have to have a romantic connection, you just have to like them in the 'right' way, and when that happens, it all kind of 'clicks'.

I'm not really looking to like someone in a specific way. I feel like most people want to sleep with an individual, but for me it's more like a yes/no question.

 

Thank you everyone. I think I need a little while to ponder. I'm sort of in a information overload and need some time to process (and eat).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, neverlove said:

I'm not really looking to like someone in a specific way. I feel like most people want to sleep with an individual, but for me it's more like a yes/no

 Ooooh, I thought you were saying that you have the desire for sex with other people, but haven't met anyone you actually want to have sex with? Did I read that wrong?

 

For me, I also don't look for anyone.. but if I happen to stumble across them and they make me feel that 'click', that's when I can potentially want sex with them (and don't desire sex UNLESS I have someone I have that click with. Again, never happened to me in 'meat life' yet so I've never actually physically had sex that I want yet. I don't just have a general desire for sex or anything like that)

 

Many (sexual) people do enjoy the idea of sexual intimacy, yes. 

 

So to clarify: Are you saying you desire to have sex, but just haven't met anyone you like enough to have it with yet?

 

Or are you saying you like the idea of sex, but prefer to just have it with randoms you have no connection to?

 

Or that you like the idea of sex, but want a committed friend (not romantic partner) to have it with?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic
2 hours ago, Serran said:

Since you say it has to be appropriate with kids to not be sexual, surely you aren't romantic with kids, so romantic asexual is non-existent in your eyes ?

 

2 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I have never wanted sex with my beau, never been aroused by him, and never done anything foreplay-y, but I most certainly kiss him, and snuggle, and lean on him.


So uh, obviously people think I'm invalidating them and questioning the existence of "romantic asexuals" – which would imply I think my partner isn't that. This dude who gets me annoying, wilting flowers 🙄 ... and has been steadfastly identifying as asexual.

 

We are discussing this idea of "sensual attraction" which involves physical interactions between people. I classify physical interactions as "sexual" and "not-sexual". That's it. Not "platonic" vs "romantic" vs "sexual". Not-sexual physical interactions can be affectionate in both romantic and familial contexts.

 

I see no items that exist in  a special "romantic but not sexual" category that are distinct from "not sexual and ok between us and our kids". Locking lips? Uh, yeah, that sounds like a sexual behavior. 😐 Cuddling? Not so sexual. Tada. That's my heuristic. 🎉 

 

Is cuddling something you, personally, would do with a child you know? Maybe not! Maybe you don't have kids, maybe they're too old now and it gets weird – because cuddling is borderline territory in sexually capable adults. Is cuddling something I and my partner do with our children? Sure! And it's 100% acceptable, they're very young and it's normal. It's not a sexual behavior with them, and it's not when we do it with each other. It communicates love in a non-sexual way, that love can be familial or romantic.

 

2 hours ago, Serran said:

I don't think an aromantic virgin who IDs as ace or a sexual who has never experienced romantic relationships without a sexual desire really has the experience to say how a non-sexual romantic relationship feels, no. Neither has ever felt it.

Someone who has no non-sexual physical intimacy with someone that isn't their romantic partner is telling me there's a special "romantic" category of physical interaction that's distinct from sexual and everything else (familial, platonic).

Oh but I do know a trifecta – my partner – he identifies as romantic, and identifies as asexual, and he cuddles with the kids and me. And as I've said before, this idea that there's some magic category of stuff that's not child-safe, like "making out", and is "sensual! romantic! but certainly not sexual!" garners the most "AVEN is full of nuts" expression on his face.

 

3 hours ago, skullery said:

I don't actually think there's any such thing as sensual attraction... I think it's a positive sexual attraction being limited by a negative sexual desire.

Yeah, I'm pretty much here. I think the idea of "sensual attraction" is muddy AF and it's mixing up things that don't belong.

Namely:

1. sexual attraction mixed with sex repulsion (or just wanting to take it slow?)
2. a non-sexual desire for physical affection

 

When people have gotten bees in their collective bonnets about what I'm saying about kids & "sensual attraction", they say stuff like "that's ridiculous! I wouldn't lie down next to a kid! I wouldn't cuddle a kid!"

... but uh, I do. My partner does. And we do it with each other. it's normal familial affection?

I appreciate if you aren't so close to kids in your lives, but the heuristic is a universally framed one related to familial affection. It's not personal to you and the kids you know. Nor is it invalidating the existence of romantic asexuality, which doesn't require some special romantic-specific form of physical interaction to exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic
8 minutes ago, anisotrophic said:

Oh but I do know a trifecta – my partner – he identifies as romantic, and identifies as asexual, and he cuddles with the kids and me.

Me: "Do you think there's any sort of physical interaction between you and me that would be inappropriate to do with our kids, but is also *not* sexual?"

 

Him: "... we could hit each other?"

😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 7:42 PM, neverlove said:

TMI alert

 

So I don't experience any particular romantic, sexual, or aesthetic interest for people, but I am interested in sex. I had to really think about whether I was asexual because I am interested in sleeping with men (though I haven't even kissed so far) and if that was possible etc. Ultimately what convinced me was this, if I could take a pill that gave me the same sensations as sex without side effects I wouldn't consider a "romantic" relationship again.

 

So this is my question, how would that feel for you? I'm not really interested in blanket statements as much as I am in taking a poll of how people would feel in committed platonic love relationships with a sexual component. How important are romantic and sexual attraction if you could still be loved and have frequent sex? I feel like if I had a relationship I'd be using someone I loved for sex, and I'm not sure if my conscience would allow that. (feel free to ask personal questions, no holds barred)  

I'm in a relationship with an ace/aro.  He does like the sensation of sex, but he still is very ace and very aro.  He loves me in a more QPR way.  He's very close with me and we trust each other completely.

 

When our relationship was new he wanted nothing to do with sex.  I know that he had sex one time in a moment of great depression where he had just given up on everything and it was pretty much thrown at him in a casual way, so he did it.

 

When we first 'hooked up' it was in a moment of great depression for me, and I had at that time pretty much given up on everything.  He didn't know at the time that I had actually developed strong feelings for him.  He just did it because he thought I needed that.  The next day he realized that it was more than that for me.  He had never been in a relationship before, and I think out of general curiosity he decided to try it. It was extremely complicated in the beginning while we were kind of finding our way. He asserted himself in his asexuality up front. And he had told me about it A few years prior, so I was aware, but I didn't really completely understand asexuality at that time.  So we discontinued having sex. I would say about three or four months in we had sex again, because he could tell that I really wanted to. And we did it a couple of times. But then he came clean as being really uncomfortable with doing that, because he felt like he was using me.  Insert another awkward period of time of self-discovery with him being aro. 

 

Once we kind of figured all of that out, I went through a period of making sure I was okay with it. I decided that I was, the relationship continued, and now we've come to a pretty decent understanding of each other. I accept him for his aro/ace orientation. He accepts me for my orientation. We both enjoy a deep intimate connection when it comes to sensual contact. Sex happens occasionally. Maybe once or twice a month. It's for me, but he doesn't feel guilty anymore about doing it. It's all out on the table where his feelings lie with me. and I told him that I accept him and his orientation and I'm just happy to be there.

 

So I guess what I'm saying, is given a very specific scenario, I would probably be just fine with it. Though knowing people throughout my life I can't say that I know anyone else that would be.

 

The coined phrase 'there is someone for everyone' is something that I truly believe in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NicoleHolmes
10 hours ago, neverlove said:

My (very unpopular) theory is that romantic love is not a good enough reason to have a relationship.

Agreed. Unfortunately having feelings for someone is not enough to make it work. I need a potential partner to be romantically/emotionally, spiritually, and sexually compatible. I need them to have good communication skills and be willing to work through problems. We need to be good friends that can have fun together and laugh it off when we argue over something stupid. I would also like to be physically/sexually attracted to the person, but I don't experience that as often as a lot of people my age seem to. So I'd say whether sex is a priority or not, we at least need to have compatible desires (or lack thereof) in that area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Or that you like the idea of sex, but want a committed friend (not romantic partner) to have it with?

So this is the closest. To be perfectly honest my religious beliefs are that I should wait for marriage (don't judge!) and that aligns with my preferences anyways. Basically I want to marry a friend. I really don't need some deep all-encompassing connection. If we're friends and have similar values I'm set to get married and have sex, etc.

 

Totally weird, but an arranged marriage sounds desirable to me. Does that clear it up?

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

Pretty much, yeah. Have an innate drive to have sex with people for your own enjoyment/fulfilment (physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual, literally whatever you get out of it)? You're sexual. Don't have that drive? Asexual.

 

Who do you innately desire to form relationships with in a non-platonic way (whatever that means for you, inclusive of sex or not)? The answer is your orientation.

Where does demi-sexual fit into this?

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

Demisexual people are sexual, oriented towards whatever gender, just like other sexual people. The 'demi' part of things doesn't refer to orientation (who one is attracted to gender-wise), so it's not really relevant to deciding what label to use.

I understood that. But is it on the other axis as a sort of inter-mediate term like sexual-demisexual-asexual?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

 

 

Image result for brexit unvivil war

 

 

 
 
 

 

Is that HIM?   Is that in a movie?   He's not really balding, is he?    NO...................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But it's not what he looks like, it's how he acts.  Especially in Shelock.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...