60
61

idiotic LGBT fb post (i.imgur.com)

thisistoomuchok が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]sciuridae_ 33ポイント34ポイント  (19子コメント)

The kid has a terrible, terrible attitude and I'm dubious about this whole "demisexuality"** thing that tumblr's thought up, but he is actually a bi trans man of colour if he's asian, bisexual and transgender. "People of colour" refers to all races that aren't white, even if that does seem a bit daft when referring to people of non-white races with super pale skin.

**(for those who don't know, demisexuality is supposed to be some kind of midpoint between asexual and sexual people where a person only feels sexual attraction to people after forming a strong emotional bond with said people. Personally I don't see that as being different enough to being sexual to merit a whole new identity/flag/whatever.)

[–]AcellOfllSpades 5ポイント6ポイント  (18子コメント)

I understand you being dubious, although I consider myself demisexual and it's definitely a distinct thing.

[–]sciuridae_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm sure that it's a thing that people experience. I'm not so sure that it's significantly different to other things that it merits its own separate category. If we look at the AVEN triangle (and I'm sure you know this but others might not) it has the Kinsey scale across the top and asexuality is the bottom point of the sexual/asexual spectrum. You could hypothetically plot every human being somewhere within that triangle.

There's infinite possibilities because the thing's a multi-dimensional spectrum. If we try to come up for different names for everybody's individual personal experience we just end up with a confusing array of labels. Other sexualities have no problem saying "I'm straight (but I sometimes fuck guys)" or "I'm pansexual (but I'm only attracted to people with femme traits, regardless of their gender)" or "I'm a lesbian (but hot damn chris pratt is attractive)" or "I'm bisexual (but my attraction is fluid so sometimes I prefer one gender to the others)"

So why don't people say "I experience sexual attraction (but not to strangers)" or "I'm asexual (but occasionally I'll feel attracted to people I loved platonically first)" if they fall outside of one of the existing ideas?

[Edit: for the record I also consider bisexuality and pansexuality (and polysexuality/omnisexuality/multisexuality/etc) to be different ways of saying "attraction to multiple genders" and wish we had one word for it. What can I say, I'm a minimalist. Also I'm not exactly about to walk up to demisexual identifying people and tell them "NO, stop that. You're wrong". Like, you do you man. I just privately think it's really silly.]

[–]AcellOfllSpades 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm... pretty much in agreement with you there. It probably doesn't need a word (just like those other cases you mentioned), but some other people find it comforting to know that their experience is common enough to have a word and I don't really complain.

[–]SFJD 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Making fun of the silliness on Tumblr is fine, but I don't understand TiA's knee-jerk response of denying any sexual orientation/gender identity that they can't immediately understand.

I have no idea if "demisexuality" is a real thing or not, but I'm not going to tell someone that I know their sexuality better than they do.

[–]xandier_104 21ポイント22ポイント  (7子コメント)

Because it is stupid

Most of these new "sexualities" are just cherry picking small things and acting as if it is a whole new identity

For example, demisexual is "a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone"

That is not a sexuality, that is a preference

[–]ojajaja 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

TIL many married men turn into demisexuals

[–]AcellOfllSpades 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's preference, not sexuality.

[–]thegargman 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hmm I'm not doubting your claim, and I only learned about demisexuality after reading this post, but I think you misunderstand what it is.

After googling it, demisexuality is not the ABILITY to feel sexually attracted after forming close emotional bonds, but rather the INABILITY to feel sexually attracted to someone unlesd you have a close emotional bond.

That means that a demisexual will never get a boner after seeing a hot girl or have thoughts about her. Which, imo, I can see meriting it's own sexuality

[–]AcellOfllSpades 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

THANK you. Yes, this is how it works. I'd understand if you want to describe it as "asexual except towards people with a strong emotional connection to you" or something but it is definitely not just a preference.

[–]happyparallel 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I tend to agree with you. However, because this doesn't apply to me (I'll fuck any girl hot enough if she's down), I try not to be vocal about it. I'm not that way, so I don't really know. It's not my place to explain to other people what they're feeling/experiencing.

[–]AcellOfllSpades 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, it's an actual sexuality. It's not just a preference, it's a near-complete physical incapability of sexual attraction without an emotional bond.

[–]JoosMoose 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"I choose not to have casual sex, and instead wait until I have formed an emotional bond with someone," is different than, "I am incapable of feeling sexual attraction until I have that bond." Someone can be against casual sex in their personal life, but still find people they are not emotionally attached to sexually attractive. If they are demisexual, though, it doesn't work that way. At least that's my impression of it. I don't consider myself demisexual, and anyone who does is certainly free to correct me. If that's just a preference, then so are hetero- and homosexuality. After all, those people can't feel sexual attraction toward someone unless that person is a certain gender.

I do feel that some of these new labels are redundant, and demisexual does seem to be a more subtle distinction. I think there is a distinction, though, after talking to enough people about it. It's a more likely label to be abused by special snowflakes, perhaps, but that's not to say it doesn't exist.

[–]RJPennyweather 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

demisexual

It's not a thing. You're bisexual and you prefer to have an emotional connection before you have sex with someone. That's not sexuality. That's preference.

[–]AcellOfllSpades 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

No, it's an actual sexuality. It's not just a preference, it's a near-complete physical incapability of sexual attraction without an emotional bond.

[–]RJPennyweather -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

So what you're saying is that somehow you've transcended millions of years of animal instinct, completely deeming everything that has made every animal ever want to fuck useless?

You can look at a person and see absolutely nothing but as soon as you find out you both like a few of the same things suddenly you can tell if you want to have sex with them?

Seems legit.

[–]AcellOfllSpades 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

No, I did not say either of those things. You're clearly exaggerating.

[–]RJPennyweather 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

a near-complete physical incapability of sexual attraction without an emotional bond.

That's exactly what you said.

[–]AcellOfllSpades 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't see where deeming anything useless comes in, and "emotional bond" and "finding out you both like a few of the same things" are completely different.

[–]RJPennyweather 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look, I'm not going to argue with you. You want to be a special little snowflake go ahead. Give yourself 1 million little labels. But you know it's bullshit, and so doesn't everyone that isn't in your little special snowflake club.

One day, when you're older, you'll laugh about how desperately you wanted to be different and gave yourself dumb labels. It's OK kid.