Support NeoGAF

[Izuna]

For some of us, it is. My reasons for being open to sexual and romantic relationships with both men and women stems from the fact that I am neither attracted to or repulsed by either of them, physically.

Hence the rest of my post.

 

[Kitsunebaby]

Hence the rest of my post.

Apologies if I misunderstood, but a lot of your posts seemed like you were insinuating that asexuals are still hetero, homo, or bi but just with a lower sex drive.

I just wanted to make clear that in my case (and the cases of many others) I am most definitely not hetero, homo, or bisexual as I understand those orientations to be, but I still have plenty of sexual urges.

 

[Izuna]

Apologies if I misunderstood, but a lot of your posts seemed like you were insinuating that asexuals are still hetero, homo, or bi but just with a lower sex drive.

I just wanted to make clear that in my case (and the cases of many others) I am most definitely not hetero, homo, or bisexual as I understand those orientations to be, but I still have plenty of sexual urges.

It's semantics, really. You said earlier that you feel repulsed by neither. Outside of sex, there's a lot I wouldn't wish to do with another male. For the asexual, outside of sex, there can still be preferences. As far as I know, the traditional definition if hetero and homosexually refers only to attraction, not desire for intercourse.

Of course, the perspective of desire and sex could be different from an asexual person and those who aren't. It's hard for either to settle om the semantics of it all.

 

[Astral Dog]

For the record, I'm not conflating polyamory with kink. I consider kink to be about sex. Polyamory vs Monogamy is about getting what we need and want from relationships.

That said, I think many are missing my point and I blame myself for not articulating it well.

Kink ≠ sexual orientation or identity. I agree with this 100%.

I'm also not suggesting that people all have the same level of hardship in discrimination that they face.

All I am suggesting is that the definition of 'queer' should encompass, many, many more people. Just because you are 'queer' doesn't mean you are necessarily gay, lesbian, trans, asexual, etc.

In other words:

Queer ≠ LGBTQ+ Why should it... because history? Because reasons?



As a sex-positive person, I've got your back. As a sex-positive person, you've got mine.

Do I need to fight for my rights in the same way as you? No, I don't. And, believe it or not, that is actually an ASSET. Strength in numbers.

Let's assume Billy Bob Bumfuck likes to suck on his wife's toes. You can say he's 'kinky,' sure... but where does that attraction come from? And if it's socially accepted that any sexual behavior that deviates from the norm is considered 'queer', that means he's queer too.

And thus, despite being from a small, isolated community down in Alabama, maybe, just maybe, he'll be more accepting of your sexuality since he's in the same boat.

Yes you got it Gurl, spank that bitch! 👋

 

[teacupcopter]

From earlier in the thread but seriously are we meant to be asking literally everyone in the world we meet their pronouns!? Couldn't this be borderline offensive for people who perhaps look like "feminine" or "masculine" but don't identify as such?

Like literally clients at work I'm meant to say "hello thanks for coming in, by the way what is your gender you prefer to be referred to?"

It's just not realistic. You'd be looked at as weird in many, many circles. Again when does this stop? Like if I make a joke to someone about going for a run and they say they have some knee problem and I shouldn't assume their ableness? Ask someone if they went on a date and they say did you just assume I'm not asexual?

Why get offended at basic language

 

[Rajack]

Its included here in St. Louis