rpanons | You sound fat

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

Why do you care if you think it isn't

not op but most of the time it feels like the person is saying "i'm not like those shallow people only attracted to people for sex, i need a DEEP EMOTIONAL CONNECTION FIRST"

casually ignoring this is how attraction works for everyone

but it doesn't happen like that for everyone. is it maybe alienating to people who are attracted sexually without knowing someone first? sure, but don't say that's how it works for everyone lol. there are definitely people who are sexually attracted to others without having a deep emotional attraction.

Also, demisexuality describes the ONLY mode of attraction that is deemed acceptable for women by society at large. It's wrapped up in a whole bunch of bullshit baggage.

I was in my 30s when I read about demisexuality, realized I probably would have IDed as asexual at 16 had I known about it, and wouldn't have chased boys as a way to fit in back then.

I married my husband after dating him for almost 2 years and never knew what it meant to be sexually attracted to him until after the marriage. That's why I describe myself as demi rather than ace.

It bothers me when people say demisexuality isn't a thing when it describes my experience so well and knowing about it being a possibility might have saved me a lot of confusion.

Personally I think OP's reaction is due to the fact that so many tumblrinas misuse the term that it's lost all meaning. It's a bit like asexual, problematic, trigger, etc.

The fact that some people use a term inappropriately doesn't mean that what the term is meant to describe isn't real.

It's interesting you compare it to overused terms like "asexual" and "trigger," because people generally don't act like those things are not real; they instead criticize people who use them inappropriately.

I think the "lol demisexuality isn't real" thing is mostly based in the unfortunate fact that demisexuality happens to coincide with the bullshit Victorian "madonna" side of the madonna/whore dichotomy. So people get up in arms about the moral implications and how anyone who identifies as demi must be looking down on those gross people who fuck around with anyone, when ... no? Maybe some demisexuals do. I've never seen anyone who actually identifies as demi say that, just people who are complaining about tumblrina demis claiming that that's what it always means.

Some people really are asexual the vast majority of the time and with regards to the vast majority of people, but are capable of experiencing sexual attraction within close emotional relationships, and that's what "demi" was actually coined to reflect.

I have seen far too many demis going "I just don't understand sexual attraction without love, I mean, so weird!" or whining about how oppressed they are as demis to assume that people who are using the term are using it just as a descriptor and not as a tone-deaf value judgment.

oh give it up. "demisexual" was a label created solely so hets could claim queer points.

Not wanting to have sex with someone until you have a deep emotional bond with them isn't a sexuality. It's at most a preference you put on your dating profile, and sure it's something that should be respected but it's not so unique and different that it deserves a sexuality label.

+2

(Anonymous) - 2016-05-17 17:56 (UTC) - Expand

actually it was invented by a teenage girl playing a mary sue on a RP forum, not even shitting you

it's literally a pretend label that was coined for the sole purpose of making somebody's self-insert more special

when people say it isn't a thing, they mean it's not something worthy of a label bc of how ridiculously common it is, especially among women. using it as a label to explain your preferences to potential date partners etc is fine and all, but the tumblr twees using it to claim they're totally queer and oppressed despite being het and cis is where the bulk of the hatred towards it hails.

thanks for saving me the trouble of answering them.

So are you saying then that heterosexual isn't worthy of a label since it's so ridiculously common as well?

at least it's an actual sexuality and not merely something akin to "i don't fuck on the first date".

except heterosexuality is a thing to denote what gender you prefer. demisexuality is a purple prose label to make someone feel 'speshul'.

Then say that rather than "it's so common" because if we were saying that labels that are common don't deserve to be labels then heterosexual shouldn't be a label because it's common to the point that people tend to assume a person is heterosexual until told otherwise.

Yeah, I agree demisexuality is overused as a label, but the fact that it is common doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just is overused and people who think they are oppressed for being demisexual are morons since it is a societal expectation, especially for women.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-05-18 02:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-05-18 02:31 (UTC) - Expand

"not into one night stands" just isn't a sexuality. And "not into one night stands" is definitely not oppressed.

the only oppression they're experiencing is from using a stupid fucking label to try to muscle into queer spaces. drop the stupid fucking label and stop trying to invade queer spaces, no hostility. imagine that.

also, hostility over your aggressive actions =/= oppression. being called out for slutshaming =/= oppression.

I'm just going to point out that you implied that if a thing is common it's not worthy of a label.

That makes literally no sense.

Things that Totally Happened

You're sexually attracted to someone now though, aren't you? Sexual orientation covers gender preference in sexual attraction but it doesn't cover libido, kinks, romantic attraction, single target sexuality, the way you choose to express your sexuality, etc. I'm all for recognizing those things as important parts of sexual identity, but I'd rather that people see sexuality as complex and multidimensional (gender preference, romantic attraction, sexual expression, libido, etc.) than try to add a bunch of new "orientations" that try to describe fluid ideas that go beyond orientation.

So yeah, demisexuality is a thing, but "demisexuality" is a really bad way to explain it.

the concept is technically "a thing that happens once in a blue moon", but creating a label and making it in the same realm as homosexuality and bisexuality is bullshit.

I can believe that it's a thing, but I don't see how it's a sexual orientation. Demisexuality describes when you're attracted to someone, not who you're attracted to. And it's really not all that uncommon to only want to have sex with someone after you've already been dating them for awhile (not just to feel more comfortable that way, but to only want it once you're already in a solid relationship).

To put it another way: if someone came up with a new label for people who experience sexual attraction at first sight, and the Internet started acting like that's a unique and oppressed identity, you'd think that's stupid, right?

Thank you for your response (and not, for some bizarre reason, implying that I was lying, like a previous anon). I have done some Googling and some reading now and I'm seeing it from your point of view. I honestly had no idea people thought of it as a LGBTQ identity on the same level as homosexuality. I had just read the description and some light discussion on it in the past, realized it sounded like me, and moved on. It's really unfortunate that people who use this descriptor and this one only are elbowing into spaces where they don't belong. I found this faq, which explains why asexuality is not a spectrum (something I also wasn't aware anyone claimed) and it certainly makes sense to me: http://noyourenotmogai.tumblr.com/faq

I still continue to identify with this label because of the history I mentioned, but I'm not going to present it to others as freely as I have in the past. I doubt that most people who are using that term to describe themselves had the kind of long-term experience with it that I had.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You sound fat

no subject

no subject

no subject

DA

ayrt

da

dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

+1

+2

Re: dda

no subject

+1

no subject

da

no subject

no subject

(no subject)

(no subject)

no subject

+1

no subject

Re: ayrt

Re: ayrt

Re: ayrt

Re: ayrt

ayrt