Jump to content

Let’s get this (sex fav.) schism started!


neverlove

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, neverlove said:

Maybe, @Serran, but aren't the labels how people find their community? I'm also not sure that staying away from labels is the answer; I feel like people will bring them up regardless, and I feel like they should to an extent. We have them because they are useful, right?

Because if you start without labels, it might help identifying whether any of the existing labels even fit what you are looking for, or whether creating a new label instead would be better.

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

Well, in a thread about an experience labels I don't find useful, tbh. Since everyone applies the labels differently. So people who experience desires like me may call themselves grey, I just use sexual cause I find grey not useful, others may use ace, yet others may use cupiosexual ...etcetcetc. But all may have the same exact experience. So when discussing it to find people who share it, rather than as politics, I find it much more useful to just leave labels out of it and ask if anyone else feels X or Y. 

I feel like the asexual "labels" are completely about asking/identifing the a to z of attraction--all kinds. Certain identities have a lot of different shades and everyone experiences things pretty differently, but the asexual identities have so many qualifiers and traits that I feel like this is exactly what these terms are accomplishing. Some people using off brand definitions is not a reason to stop using a term that is still useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Charna said:

Because if you start without labels, it might help identifying whether any of the existing labels even fit what you are looking for, or whether creating a new label instead would be better.

I agree that labels can sweep a lot of diversity under their brand. That's why schisms occur, people come together because of common ideas and then start forming their own groups within that where their ideas diverge. It's always good to have a place to start from right? 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't schisms are a good place to start with, tbh. If religions are an example, it tends tolead to bloody conflicts. I'd rather follow the example of the LGBT community, which brings people with different labels together.

 

 

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

I don't schisms are a good place to start with, tbh. If religions are an example, it tends tolead to bloody conflicts. I'd rather follow the example of the LGBT community, which brings people with different labels together.

 

 

Unfortunately the LGBTQ community can be one of the most intolerant. As a queer Christian I sometimes find both lots of individuals (and they are individuals not the whole) very difficult. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I live in Poland, so I have to disagree. There is nothing worse than an intolerant majority (here it's conservative Catholics), because then intolerance is given power.

 

edit: Just to clarify, I agree that you can find extremely intolerant individuals in any group. But intolerance of individuals is not the same as organized efforts by a group that is in the majority.

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

Maybe, @Serran, but aren't the labels how people find their community? 

In the first years of AVEN, there was basically one label: asexuality.  People managed to find the asexual community through that one word.  Since most of us have never met IRL another asexual, our community so far is basically on-line.   A made-up label posted on AVEN doesn't really help anyone meet an IRL community.  

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

In the first years of AVEN, there was basically one label: asexuality.  People managed to find the asexual community through that one word.  Since most of us have never met IRL another asexual, our community so far is basically on-line.   A made-up label posted on AVEN doesn't really help anyone meet an IRL community.  

I don't really understand your point here. All labels are constructs and we are not discussing meeting face to face. It also seems odd to say that what happens online doesn't affect things offline, if so what are we doing here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Charna said:

Eh, I live in Poland, so I have to disagree. There is nothing worse than an intolerant majority (here it's conservative Catholics), because then intolerance is given power.

 

edit: Just to clarify, I agree that you can find extremely intolerant individuals in any group. But intolerance of individuals is not the same as organized efforts by a group that is in the majority.

 

17 hours ago, Charna said:

I don't schisms are a good place to start with, tbh. If religions are an example, it tends tolead to bloody conflicts. I'd rather follow the example of the LGBT community, which brings people with different labels together.

 

 

Hmm. So first I want to say that your comments made me uncomfortable. I feel like it wasn't necessary to bring religion in as an example, nor do I think it is fair to label all splits in beliefs as bloody. Major disagreements tend to be bloody regardless of their origin, and just as many can be peacable. I'm sorry you've faced discrimination, but discrimination is always the result of individuals making choices, just the same as support and kindness.

Now I don't think the LGBTQIA community is about bringing people with different labels together. The combination of so many was to gain more people for the movement and therefore more power--just like anything else. No one who claims these labels is actually required to support any other label, it was just a smart move for so many minorities to combine their voices for the sake of their own rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the main reason this post attracts so much conflict is because the title is labeled schism, as if two viewpoints cannot coexist in peace.  I personally agree with the OP, that sex-favourable is misunderstood, but I don't see a schism as necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, crazy ace said:

I feel that the main reason this post attracts so much conflict is because the title is labeled schism, as if two viewpoints cannot coexist in peace.  I personally agree with the OP, that sex-favourable is misunderstood, but I don't see a schism as necessary.

That wasn't really my intention. Actually, if what I've read on this site is any indicator, I believe this split already exists. I don't really think a schism will occur. I think eventually the site will choose a direction and people will leave without reforming into a separate coalition as that seems to be the current trend. 

 

Some commenters seems to treat aro/ace sex repulsed people as a protected species and are driving off perceived predators in droves. I think this will kill the site before a schism could take root. We'll never make it to the asexual version of "everyone's a little gay", which I think I'll go ahead and post.

 

 I think more people fall on the gray spectrum than what is currently acknowledged. I think we don't notice them much the way we don't notice it in ourselves. I think because there are people who do okay with sex in this spectrum, and don't generally become at odds with society they never find any particular difference that makes them search for an answer. Which is also why I think if you found enough of a difference in yourself to ask if you were asexual or not then you probably fall within the definition of the spectrum even if you choose not to identify that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 12:57 AM, neverlove said:

I’d like to hear more about your guys’ sex favorable stories and how you guys are relating to the asexual community, so tag: @Demi Dad, @DemiDummy, @greynonomous, @Michael_91, @oldsoulvocalist, @InShadesofGray, @Strange But Not a Stranger, @KendraPM, @DogObsessedLianne, @Spectre/Ex/Machina

You forgot me!

On 9/6/2019 at 1:47 AM, Sally said:

But that's basically the definition of asexuality: having no innate desire to have sex with another person.  Asexuality is finally being accepted as an orientation.  

Actually the definition is “not having sexual attraction to other people”. No where in the AVEN definition does it say “not desiring to have partnered sex”. Most definitions of asexual likewise focus on the lack of sexual attraction to other people, not a lack of desire for sexual activity.

 

Due to another thread on here, where I almost left, I was contacted by a board member of AVEN who said that what happened in that thread (where my orientation of a sex favorable asexual was invalidated and I was told I’m actually sexual) is not what AVEN is supposed to be about and it goes against AVEN’s principles. They also said that changing this problem was a top priority of the board.

 

That PM is the ONLY reason I am back here. I have talked to several other sex favorable asexuals who see AVEN as hostile so avoid it. 

 

We cant police a thread and kick someone off it, but we CAN all gang up on the person and tell them they’re wrong and that their statement is invalid. Just like asexual elites and other arrogant asexuals like to do with us.

 

I am still very angry at many people here on AVEN for telling me what I feel when they have no business saying so. I struggled ALOT with being asexual in my twenties and not being attracted to people is the primary reason that I’ve only just the past few years been in a serious relationship and fallen in love. Most people my age (35) have fallen in love more than once.

 

If we cannot put ourselves on the asexual spectrum where do we fit? The answer is nowhere else. But they are so arrogant that they think they know our bodies and minds. We are interested in sexual activity so therefore they think we must experience sexual attraction and we therefore must be sexual.

 

I think part of the problem is that indifferent and repulsed asexuals cannot understand how a person can have a libido that isn’t attracted to other people, yet simultaneously does provide enjoyment (with sex). It’s something that doesn’t make sense to them. Also not wanting sex is a big part of the problems in their lives so they don’t want to include us because we don’t have that problem.

 

What they fail to understand is that for me anyway not having an attraction to people by itself can cause a lot of problems. 

 

Its so ironic that they are so so arrogant and feel like they must tell us what we feel, especially when many people on here have expressed asexual erasure from allosexuals. You would think they wouldn’t be hypocrites about it. But it probably stems from an insecurity. 

 

Yeah if you can’t tell I am still pretty angry at the arrogant asexual elites.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

I think part of the problem is that indifferent and repulsed asexuals cannot understand how a person can have a libido that isn’t attracted to other people, yet simultaneously does provide enjoyment (with sex).

I'm an indifferent, but I can understand. There's 3 year-olds who masturbate, but its not like they experience sexual attraction.

Also, please let's not turn this into us vs. them. Enjoying the feeling of sex shouldn't be discriminated against, but not all repulseds or indifferents hate sex-positive aces.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

You forgot me!

Actually the definition is “not having sexual attraction to other people”. No where in the AVEN definition does it say “not desiring to have partnered sex”. Most definitions of asexual likewise focus on the lack of sexual attraction to other people, not a lack of desire for sexual activity.

 

Due to another thread on here, where I almost left, I was contacted by a board member of AVEN who said that what happened in that thread (where my orientation of a sex favorable asexual was invalidated and I was told I’m actually sexual) is not what AVEN is supposed to be about and it goes against AVEN’s principles. They also said that changing this problem was a top priority of the board.

 

That PM is the ONLY reason I am back here. I have talked to several other sex favorable asexuals who see AVEN as hostile so avoid it. 

 

We cant police a thread and kick someone off it, but we CAN all gang up on the person and tell them they’re wrong and that their statement is invalid. Just like asexual elites and other arrogant asexuals like to do with us.

 

I am still very angry at many people here on AVEN for telling me what I feel when they have no business saying so. I struggled ALOT with being asexual in my twenties and not being attracted to people is the primary reason that I’ve only just the past few years been in a serious relationship and fallen in love. Most people my age (35) have fallen in love more than once.

 

If we cannot put ourselves on the asexual spectrum where do we fit? The answer is nowhere else. But they are so arrogant that they think they know our bodies and minds. We are interested in sexual activity so therefore they think we must experience sexual attraction and we therefore must be sexual.

 

I think part of the problem is that indifferent and repulsed asexuals cannot understand how a person can have a libido that isn’t attracted to other people, yet simultaneously does provide enjoyment (with sex). It’s something that doesn’t make sense to them. Also not wanting sex is a big part of the problems in their lives so they don’t want to include us because we don’t have that problem.

 

What they fail to understand is that for me anyway not having an attraction to people by itself can cause a lot of problems. 

 

Its so ironic that they are so so arrogant and feel like they must tell us what we feel, especially when many people on here have expressed asexual erasure from allosexuals. You would think they wouldn’t be hypocrites about it. But it probably stems from an insecurity. 

 

Yeah if you can’t tell I am still pretty angry at the arrogant asexual elites.

 

You're right! I did forget you. My apologies. I actually think a lot of the people criticizing sex fav. people do not identify as asexuals. I've noticed people speaking on their "behalf" a lot.

 

It's good to hear the admin is worried about this. I thought their silence on the subject was tacit agreement. Personally, I think they could just define sex favorable officially if they feel that way, and give us creedence. Of course, I was raised to say what I thought was right even if it made people unhappy. 🤷🏽‍♀️

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gray-a girl said:

You forgot me!

Actually the definition is “not having sexual attraction to other people”. No where in the AVEN definition does it say “not desiring to have partnered sex”. Most definitions of asexual likewise focus on the lack of sexual attraction to other people, not a lack of desire for sexual activity.

 

Due to another thread on here, where I almost left, I was contacted by a board member of AVEN who said that what happened in that thread (where my orientation of a sex favorable asexual was invalidated and I was told I’m actually sexual) is not what AVEN is supposed to be about and it goes against AVEN’s principles. They also said that changing this problem was a top priority of the board.

 

That PM is the ONLY reason I am back here. I have talked to several other sex favorable asexuals who see AVEN as hostile so avoid it. 

 

We cant police a thread and kick someone off it, but we CAN all gang up on the person and tell them they’re wrong and that their statement is invalid. Just like asexual elites and other arrogant asexuals like to do with us.

 

I am still very angry at many people here on AVEN for telling me what I feel when they have no business saying so. I struggled ALOT with being asexual in my twenties and not being attracted to people is the primary reason that I’ve only just the past few years been in a serious relationship and fallen in love. Most people my age (35) have fallen in love more than once.

 

If we cannot put ourselves on the asexual spectrum where do we fit? The answer is nowhere else. But they are so arrogant that they think they know our bodies and minds. We are interested in sexual activity so therefore they think we must experience sexual attraction and we therefore must be sexual.

 

I think part of the problem is that indifferent and repulsed asexuals cannot understand how a person can have a libido that isn’t attracted to other people, yet simultaneously does provide enjoyment (with sex). It’s something that doesn’t make sense to them. Also not wanting sex is a big part of the problems in their lives so they don’t want to include us because we don’t have that problem.

 

What they fail to understand is that for me anyway not having an attraction to people by itself can cause a lot of problems. 

 

Its so ironic that they are so so arrogant and feel like they must tell us what we feel, especially when many people on here have expressed asexual erasure from allosexuals. You would think they wouldn’t be hypocrites about it. But it probably stems from an insecurity. 

 

Yeah if you can’t tell I am still pretty angry at the arrogant asexual elites.

 

I’m glad to hear you stayed. I’ve also had problems here but when I take a step back I realise it’s always the same few people; it is not representative of AVEN as a whole.

 

I’ve decided to change my displayed identity to “sex-favourable asexual”. I realise this may attract antagonism from some (very few, but very vocal) members and that is just something I’m going to have to deal with. I think it’s important to show we exist.

 

Whilst it’s tempting to round on the people who have historically attacked us on other threads I’d recommend taking the high ground. There are surprisingly few members who will actively troll/bully/invalidate/insult. It is much better to simply not engage them in conversation when they are acting like that. I still correct factual misstatements but personally don’t engage past one or two messages. This will leave a much more positive message behind for people on the sex-favourable end to find in the future 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gray-a girl said:

Actually the definition is “not having sexual attraction to other people”. No where in the AVEN definition does it say “not desiring to have partnered sex”. Most definitions of asexual likewise focus on the lack of sexual attraction to other people, not a lack of desire for sexual activity.

 

That definition is not the only one.  In the dozens of definitions threads on AVEN, many people have supported the "not wanting to have sex with anyone" definition, and in fact, AVEN mentions that definition somewhere (can't find  it, but maybe someone else can).  In any case, we may all be members of AVEN, but we all individually assess how we feel, including our determination of why we identify as asexual.  

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

That definition is not the only one.  In the dozens of definitions threads on AVEN, many people have supported the "not wanting to have sex with anyone" definition, and in fact, AVEN mentions that definition somewhere (can't find  it, but maybe someone else can).  In any case, we may all be members of AVEN, but we all individually assess how we feel, including our determination of why we identify as asexual.  

?!

 

I agree. We should be able to make our own determination and have that respected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@gray-a girl I just wanted to say I'm so sorry you've been on the negative end of things. Ultimately we are all here for the support that is often the only a-spec support many have, and it's a shame people can't keep that central. It's amazing how many people are experts on you with only knowing you through a tiny amount of words on a screen. So sad. But I think it is human tendency, it's much easier to judge than to truly actively listen, and that is across the board and even offline.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 8:22 AM, DogObsessedLianne said:

... celibacy (which actually is a choice non-specific to any particular orientation and nothing actually to do with asexuality)...

YES!! Asexuality is an ORIENTATION, and whether or not you actually HAVE sex has absolutely nothing to do with what your orientation is! Neither sexual activity nor celibacy is a requirement to be any other orientation, and to say otherwise for asexuals is ridiculous, confusing, and causes the 99% of people who aren't us to invalidate asexuality as an orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 7:18 AM, DogObsessedLianne said:

... I have extremely strong aesthetic attraction towards women and not particularly towards men and would describe a celeb on tv as "lovely" but without actually any thought to sleep with, date or kiss her, and this does include appreciating the female body aesthetically much more than the male body (I incorrectly thought I was gay at one point it is so strong). And this is often extremely a lot more aesthetic attraction than any straight woman usually experiences...

Do you think you might be experiencing alterous attraction to women? I had some confusion in this area as well, and that's what eventually rang true for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dawning said:

YES!! Asexuality is an ORIENTATION, and whether or not you actually HAVE sex has absolutely nothing to do with what your orientation is! Neither sexual activity nor celibacy is a requirement to be any other orientation, and to say otherwise for asexuals is ridiculous, confusing, and causes the 99% of people who aren't us to invalidate asexuality as an orientation.

I agree. You can be a lesbian even if you regularly have sex with guys. 

 

It is interesting that s majority of asexuals are sex repulsed or sex indifferent. I wonder do a majority of asexuals just not experience a libido too?

 

Someone posted something quite accurate earlier... that you can enjoy sexual stuff by letting someone else do it instead of doing it yourself. There is something nice about the lack of control and the surprise factor, hence why doing it with someone else. I don’t know how many asexuals have a libido and masterbate but if most do this shouldn’t be a hard concept to understand. I can only conclude that most do not, then.

 

So I’m wondering about this. Do most asexuals also lack a libido and just never  masterbate? Otherwise I don’t see why sex favorable Asexuality would be so hard to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some more food for thought: Many of the people who are insisting that an asexual can't have desire, or libido, or feel sexual enjoyment, or whatever other nonsense, are referring to the following:

 

http://wiki.asexuality.org/Primary_vs._secondary_sexual_attraction_model

 

Primary vs. secondary sexual attraction model

This hypothetical model of sexuality takes the position that sexual attraction and desire can each be subdivided into "primary" and "secondary" forms:

  • Primary Sexual Attraction: A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire.
  • Secondary Sexual Attraction: A sexual attraction that develops over time based on a person's relationship and emotional connection with another person.
  • Primary Sexual Desire: The desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes of personal pleasure whether physical, emotional, or both.
  • Secondary Sexual Desire: The desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes other than personal pleasure, such as the happiness of the other person involved or the conception of children.

It's obviously foolish to add having no libido as a requirement for being asexual, when people of other orientations can have no libido, some libido, or huge libido and still be gay or straight or whatever, but let's dig deeper. Here is the table that this model uses: 

 

Sexual Orientation Primary Attraction? Secondary Attraction? Primary Desire? Secondary Desire?
Sexual Yes Yes Yes Yes
Demisexual No Yes Yes Yes
Asexual No No No Yes

 

This table is supposed to make clear how we should categorize ourselves… but do you notice something missing here? What if you have any interest whatsoever in having orgasms that you don't have to produce with your own efforts, whether or not you feel desire per se, in other words an emotion or a feeling, or just an intellectual interest in an orgasmic experience with assistance, in the same way that you might eat a piece of chocolate not because you're hungry, not because you're craving it, but because it's available and it will produce a pleasant sensation? That would give us this:

 

Sexual Orientation Primary Attraction? Secondary Attraction? Primary Desire? Secondary Desire?
Sexual Yes Yes Yes Yes
Demisexual No Yes Yes Yes

Asexual

???????

No

NO

No

NO

No

YES

Yes

whatever

 

So what do we do with THAT? This model, that we're getting bludgeoned with as proof of not being asexual, doesn't have a category for sex-positive aces, in other words for people who NEVER FEEL SEXUAL ATTRACTION but are interested in sexual pleasure of some sort. Whether our interest is masturbation, assisted masturbation, fetish, or standard sexual interaction, if WE NEVER FEEL SEXUAL ATTRACTION, we are not represented by the current model.

 

Clearly the model has failed, but since people are still clinging to it, I think they owe us an answer to the question… What do we call the people in red above? Are we supposed to create yet another sexual orientation, and then try to explain to the 99% majority why we need TWO different sexual orientations for people who never feel attraction to anyone? Please tell me that you see how ridiculous that would be!!

 

In the same way that people in prison who would never touch someone of their same gender on the outside will have regular sexual activity with same-sex partners while behind bars because that's what's available, but are still straight, you can be asexual and have sexual activity because you want release or pleasure but still remain ace.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dawning said:

Here's some more food for thought: Many of the people who are insisting that an asexual can't have desire, or libido, or feel sexual enjoyment, or whatever other nonsense, are referring to the following:

 

http://wiki.asexuality.org/Primary_vs._secondary_sexual_attraction_model

 

Primary vs. secondary sexual attraction model

This hypothetical model of sexuality takes the position that sexual attraction and desire can each be subdivided into "primary" and "secondary" forms:

  • Primary Sexual Attraction: A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire.
  • Secondary Sexual Attraction: A sexual attraction that develops over time based on a person's relationship and emotional connection with another person.
  • Primary Sexual Desire: The desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes of personal pleasure whether physical, emotional, or both.
  • Secondary Sexual Desire: The desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes other than personal pleasure, such as the happiness of the other person involved or the conception of children.

It's obviously foolish to add having no libido as a requirement for being asexual, when people of other orientations can have no libido, some libido, or huge libido and still be gay or straight or whatever, but let's dig deeper. Here is the table that this model uses: 

 

Sexual Orientation Primary Attraction? Secondary Attraction? Primary Desire? Secondary Desire?
Sexual Yes Yes Yes Yes
Demisexual No Yes Yes Yes
Asexual No No No Yes

 

This table is supposed to make clear how we should categorize ourselves… but do you notice something missing here? What if you have any interest whatsoever in having orgasms that you don't have to produce with your own efforts, whether or not you feel desire per se, in other words an emotion or a feeling, or just an intellectual interest in an orgasmic experience with assistance, in the same way that you might eat a piece of chocolate not because you're hungry, not because you're craving it, but because it's available and it will produce a pleasant sensation? That would give us this:

 

Sexual Orientation Primary Attraction? Secondary Attraction? Primary Desire? Secondary Desire?
Sexual Yes Yes Yes Yes
Demisexual No Yes Yes Yes

Asexual

???????

No

NO

No

NO

No

YES

Yes

whatever

 

So what do we do with THAT? This model, that we're getting bludgeoned with as proof of not being asexual, doesn't have a category for sex-positive aces, in other words for people who NEVER FEEL SEXUAL ATTRACTION but are interested in sexual pleasure of some sort. Whether our interest is masturbation, assisted masturbation, fetish, or standard sexual interaction, if WE NEVER FEEL SEXUAL ATTRACTION, we are not represented by the current model.

 

Clearly the model has failed, but since people are still clinging to it, I think they owe us an answer to the question… What do we call the people in red above? Are we supposed to create yet another sexual orientation, and then try to explain to the 99% majority why we need TWO different sexual orientations for people who never feel attraction to anyone? Please tell me that you see how ridiculous that would be!!

 

In the same way that people in prison who would never touch someone of their same gender on the outside will have regular sexual activity with same-sex partners while behind bars because that's what's available, but are still straight, you can be asexual and have sexual activity because you want release or pleasure but still remain ace.

 

 

Yes!!! Exactly!

 

What else do we call ourselves? There is nothing else but sex favorable asexuals. But arrogant sexual elites don’t want to accept us so they try to jam us into the sexual/allosexual category, even though it doesn’t fit at all. They must think “I don’t care that this person has had trouble dating because of a lack of attraction. They want sex!” So they invalidate our experiences and struggles with trying to date people when there is no sexual attraction. Just because we like sex doesn’t mean we don’t have problems dating. But they have blinders on and can’t see that we don’t fit there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. We obviously have a label, people just don't want to accept it. And interesting because sex neutral and repulsed get to share despite. Answering differently to secondary desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gray-a girl said:

It is interesting that s majority of asexuals are sex repulsed or sex indifferent. I wonder do a majority of asexuals just not experience a libido too?

I have a libido, but it is mostly an annoyance, as I'm indifferent.

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

I have a libido, but it is mostly an annoyance, as I'm indifferent.

I'm favorable, but I consider my libido an annoyance as well. 🤷🏽‍♀️

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

I'm favorable, but I consider my libido an annoyance as well. 🤷🏽‍♀️

I’m favourable and consider my libido an annoyance some of the time, other times not.

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

Do you think you might be experiencing alterous attraction to women? I had some confusion in this area as well, and that's what eventually rang true for me.

It's more admiration, like a piece of artwork! Now I appreciate why naked women have been particularly popular subjects for artists throughout history. Actually I have strong admiration for anything beautiful in the world, it's just a shame I don't have an artistic or photography bone in my body!!! I am your typical art gallery goer though! I get platonic attraction to both, though most likely men. I just want to be their mate!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...