rpanons | You sound fat

Rundown:

rpanons is an anonymous community for role-play related topics. This place serves as a forum for game discussions, canon discussions, RP solicitations (ATP, game ads, open memes), and advice. The occasional off topic comment is inevitable, but please keep heated social and political topics to their respective communities. Posting them here will only get them frozen. Subsequent threads made to bypass a freeze will then be deleted.

Rules:

Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme. Your unfunny, forced memes also fall under this rule.
Do not treat this comm like your personal therapist. Threads about nonfictional suicide, self injury, rape, and abuse will be deleted. There are better resources out there for you.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.
Shut up about Tumblr. If it's not a discussion about Tumblr RP it will be deleted.

CONCERNS | RESOURCES

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This attitude pisses me off.

If you want to have sex, you're not asexual. It doesn't matter who it's with or who it's not with.

Asexual people don't want to have sex.

Except lack of sexual attraction, not lack of sexual activity, is the actual definition. It can piss you off all you want but that doesn't make you right.

Says AVEN. That doesn't make it right wen none of you can define "sexual attraction" because you think everyone "allosexual" is like a horny teenager from bad movies who wants to fuck everyone they see constantly.

Except only a few idiots think that, but for some reason people seem to be super obsessed with the idea that asexual people care how much sex other people are or aren't having. But since you seem to believe that orientation DOES have to do with how much and what kind of sex you're having, it's not that surprising.

And don't be purposefully obtuse. Sexual attraction isn't a complicated concept: it's the difference in how you feel about someone you're attracted to versus someone you're not. If you're straight, it's the difference between how you feel about someone attractive of the opposite sex and how you feel about someone attractive of the same sex. Etc etc with different specifics for different orientations. And, in case it wasn't TOTALLY OBVIOUS, sexual attraction =/= sexual activity, which comes back to the whole point of this conversation in that who you're attracted to (or not) doesn't always have anything to do with whether or not you have sex.

uh huh so why do all "asexual" people who have sex conveniently have sex with people they're attracted to and usually of only one gender if they're not sexually attracted to them, and how do they pick out the person they want to have sex with if they aren't interested in having sex with them?

fuck if you're a man and you constantly want to have "asexual sex" with women because you think they're "a-sexy" then you're straight, bro

do you think a guy liking pegging makes him gay

do you think a straight person who isn't in the mood is temporarily asexual

do you think enjoying the use of a dildo makes you attracted to dildos

i could go on, but the point is that you're using inane logic because you think everyone must experience sexuality the way you do, despite having people sitting here telling you they don't

you do realize the dictionary definition is 'person without sexual feelings or desires'.

so, tumblr it up all you want, but if you're feeling tingly in your bathing suit area and you have to be DJ Clitmaster to make yourself feel better, you are not asexual. just because you want a special label because 'but you guys, i'm not attracted to anyone! just myself!' doesn't make you asexual. you can't just change what a word is to suit yourself. that's like saying that because you can objectively say your female friend is hot, you're now gay. that's not what gay is. you can't just change the meaning of the word to make yourself special. find something else to be special about. don't appropriate a term that doesn't apply and make it something it's not.

okay, see, that makes sense. if that's how you want to use the word, you do that, you're certainly not the only one.

but then, in your terms, what am i? i'm not heterosexual. i'm not homosexual. i'm not bisexual. i have a libido, but i have never experienced sexual attraction. i don't think it makes me oppressed, i don't ~want a special label~, i just like being able to use a word for a real thing instead of going into bullshit detail if someone asks. because, you know, that's what humans do when we isolate a new concept, we don't call it "that one bird that's kind of like that other bird except it's green", we give it a name. denying a name is to deny that the concept exists, which is willfully stupid, because it does exist.

asexual fits the conceptual pattern (an identifier based on what gendered characteristics you are and aren't attracted to) to the naming pattern (hetero/homo/bisexual). people use it because it makes sense. what's your suggested alternative?

why do you need a fucking label? like, honestly? who cares what it makes you? you're not having to justify yourself to anyone because you're not going to put yourself in a situation where you have to like dick or vag. you can give yourself a sparkle label if you really have to, but you're the one that needs it, not anyone else. you're not asexual. you just aren't attracted to anyone. that doesn't need a name. hell, go with monosexual. 'i like to touch myself, but i don't like being with anyone else.' there you go. have fun.

because, you know, that's what humans do when we isolate a new concept, we don't call it "that one bird that's kind of like that other bird except it's green", we give it a name. denying a name is to deny that the concept exists, which is willfully stupid, because it does exist.

try reading the comment you're replying to next time. it's not about "justifying myself" to anyone, it's about there being a word for a real thing.

i like talking about the way things work. sometimes, i get into discussions about the nuts and bolts of human sexuality. in that context, it is very useful to have a word for a thing that people experience! is "bisexual" a "sparkle label" now, or is it just describing a real concept? by your logic, they should just call themselves "homo-heterosexuals", because gosh, who needs a sparkle label for both? why should they have to justify themselves to anyone? they're just homosexual when they're attracted to one, and heterosexual when they're attracted to the other. they're not bisexual, they're just attracted to everyone, that doesn't need a name.

that's kind of how you sound right now. i was kind of almost willing to think you were working in good faith from your last comment, but now i get the impression you're just really invested in making sure people don't talk about their experiences with sexuality unless they're palatable to you. that's kind of weird, dude.

monosexual already has a meaning, it's a catch-all meaning "not bisexual". it also makes no sense because mono means " one", not "none".

You sound fat

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

sa

Re: sa

ayrt

Re: ayrt

Re: ayrt