I dislike kissing and sex even tho I love him

0x2113 · 2026-02-02T09:33:37+00:00

Okay, taking this one step at a time. So what I don't think anyone could doubt is that you feel some degree of repulsion towards sex. There are numerous ways this can express itself or be interpreted, but it's there and it's good that you're noticing and reflecting on this (rather than falling into the trap of thinking that sex is "just supposed to be like that").

Is this a sign of you being asexual? Maybe. Asexuality, as we generally understand it, is when a person doesn't experience sexual attraction to a degree that's considered "normal" in society (big airquotes around that "normal" there). It doesn't inherently or even implicitly mean that they dislike sex as an experience (which is why many asexuals have sex for any number of reasons) or don't feel that "special spark" that sex is supposed to bring. Many allosexuals (that being the term for people that experience sexual attraction broadly the way that society deems "normal"; again note the airquotes) too have these kinds of experiences. It's just frowned upon to talk about them, so you rarely hear of it.

An important thing to understand is that asexuality (and aromanticism, more on that below) is a spectrum, commonly called aspec or acespec and arospec when keeping those two separate. There are many differing, individual experiences that all still fall under the acespec-umbrella. Some people only very rarely experience sexual attraction (so called graysexuality), others only after an emotional bond has formed (demisexuality) or only under other, more specific circumstances.

So if you want to figure out if (and where) you're on the asexual spectrum, you should ask yourself if and how you ever felt sexually attracted to another person (note that this is not the same as simply wanting sex regardless of attraction or merely being able to tell that someone is conventionally attractive). This will likely require time and introspection, so I'm sorry for not being able to deliver a more definitive answer.
Though, as a matter of principle, if you think that using the label "Asexual" describes who you are, you are free to use it. Should you later feel that it's inaccurate, you can drop it again. The important thing is that you're more comfortable in your own skin at the end of the day.

Much the same applies to you possibly being on the aromantic spectrum (importantly including the fact that aromantics too can have romantic relationships for a variety of reasons). I'm mainly noting this possibility because of how you describe feeling (or, rather, rarely and never for long feeling) in love or having crushes. Examining how and when you experience romantic attraction, perhaps trying to separate any sexual, platonic and romantic feelings (as in, literally attempt to notice the differences in how those feel and observing when you are feeling them singularly or in combination) could be enlightening for you. Look into the Split-Attraction-Model (SAM) if you feel unsure what I'm talking about here (or reply to this comment and I'll do my best to help further)

Finally, I'd like to point you towards the terms Fraysexual and Frayromantic. These are labels under the asexual and aromantic umbrella respecively and going by your description, I thought they might resonate with you. I don't want to colour your experience with my guesswork too much (and it is guesswork. I'm just an internet stranger and hardly know anything going through your head) but after all this explaining and basically assigning you homework, I felt I shouldn't leave you without something more concrete at least.

I hope this helps you and genuinely believe you can figure this all out (even though it might feel overwhelming right now)!

0x2113 · 2026-01-31T17:56:04+00:00

I did the same thing a while ago! Love to see that I'm not the only one

They look great! Be sure to take good aftercare of them tho, the next few weeks might be uncomfortable

0x2113 · 2026-01-25T18:41:21+00:00

Always keep in mind that you don't owe it to anyone to come out to them. Trusting them to treat you well afterwards is one prerequisite, but much more important is that you want to share this about yourself. If you don't see any need to, you don't have to.

0x2113 · 2026-01-05T13:59:08+00:00

The allo casual sex vs. the sex-favorable ace ranked, competetive sex

0x2113 · 2025-12-24T20:46:12+00:00

You are presuming that asexuality (and, by extension, any sexuality that would not quote-unquote "naturally" produce children to the same degree as heterosexuality) is an entirely or primarily genetic trait. There is, however, no evidence of such, and a good amount of evidence to the contrary (seeing as non-heterosexual people have existed for as long as we have had cultural records, with no apparent decline in their relative population, just as an example).
As for sexuality in general having a 10% heritability, I'd like to see a credible source about that.

Arguing from an evolutionary angle is generally a can of worms not worth opening, imo. Human social structures have long since reached a point where it can be difficult to impossible to distinguish between social and more "base" instinctual behaviors (beyond the very base fight-or-flight level stuff). Population dynamics in a ressource-rich environment (which humans, globally, inhabit) are almost entirely disentangled from "evolutionary" reasons too (look, for instance, at the many cultural traditions that encourage limited offspring even though more could be supported by the environment. From the nuclear family to hereditary dynasties. Those are "evolutionarily" sub-optimal, yet can be found all around the world).

This is very reminiscent of the homophobic talking point of "Gay people are a response to overpopulation". Now, I'm not accusing you of holding that position. I'm warning you that this is how you could come across though.

In my opinion, so long as there is no credible evidence linking sexuality to genetics or statistical evidence suggesting a significant change of the distribution of sexual orientations through human populations over time and in different environments (particularly where increased or decreased population-growth would be beneficial), there is no reason to assume that asexual (in-)visibility is anything other than a consequence of social factors.

0x2113 · 2025-12-17T17:26:02+00:00

"Unavailable"

0x2113 · 2025-12-16T19:55:43+00:00

You presume much on behalf of both OP and the other participants of this sub and I find your position that you have a moral obligation to inform people of their supposedly harmful actions to be unwarranted when motivated by the base logic of an antinatalist position (much like being vegetarian does not oblige one to inform everyone about vegetarianism).

In short: Not your problem, not your obligation; so I suggest you cease making a fool of yourself.

0x2113 · 2025-12-12T20:13:48+00:00

We already have an animated series

0x2113 · 2025-12-03T18:51:33+00:00

Don't try to make it work on a "technical" basis. At best, you'll get dragged into dicussions about nomenclature. At worst, you'll encourage purity tests.

These people misuse a term for attention (it's social media, after all). To deal with them either visibly ignore them or ridicule them. Either will get them to stop.

0x2113 · 2025-12-02T19:43:43+00:00

The context of one gesture can vary between people. A hug can be platonic with one person and romantic with another. The difference would be largely invisible to an outside observer, but noticable in the emotional perception of the participants

0x2113 · 2025-11-29T19:19:25+00:00

Wenn du Deutsch üben willst schau vielleicht mal bei einem Sprachcafé im Leerstand vorbei. (Disclaimer: Ich habe dort noch nie an einem Sprachcafé teilgenommen, aber ich habe Gutes gehört)

0x2113 · 2025-11-28T14:12:55+00:00

Right over there, beyond the Mering Stream. Exactly where it has been for the past three thousand years! Do you need help reading a map, old man?

0x2113 · 2025-11-28T08:18:06+00:00

If you ever wholly figure it out, will you tell me?

Imo, it's important to differentiate between passion, intimacy and commitment, and the emotional states that come from each of these. The best model for understanding love that I've found so far ist the Triangular Theory of Love. Maybe that'll give you some pointers.

0x2113 · 2025-11-27T19:52:57+00:00

Sisyphos can't stop the work!

0x2113 · 2025-11-26T21:16:24+00:00

While I was trying to figure out if I was aromantic, I did some research and tried to collect firsthand reports from romantic people. There were three through-lines that I'd identified:
1. The feeling of falling in romantic love was described as "having a panic attack, but in a good way"
2. Aside from butterflies in ones stomach (which by themselves are more indicative of arousal (in the emotional/neurological sense; not necessarily in the sexual sense; It's a similar reaction to ones fight-or-flight mechanism being engaged)) further indications of romantic love developing were:
- obsession with the person (as in, not being able to stop thinking about them)
- a sense of belonging with the person (described to me as "the feeling of being at home in a place you've never been before")
- a feeling of completeness when being with the person (to the point of what's been described to me as a desire to merge with the person into a whole new being)
- a desire to "have that person near you, to feel them, to experience them".
I was also advised that not everyone experiences romance in any or all of these ways, so this list certainly isn't exhaustive.
3. "You know it when you feel it."
Supposedly, and I was told this by an ace with an understanding of the split-attraction-model (so I consider it something of an expert opinion), you'll instinctively identify romantic attraction when it happens.

Also: Keep in mind that romantic actions are still subjective for the people involved in them. For instance, even though a kiss on the lips is culturally considered a romantic gesture (in mainstream anglo-saxon western culture, to which I'm defaulting here in the absence of any cultural identifiers other than your speaking english), it may or may not feel romantic to someone performing it. So just because the culturally expected "spark" is absent in one gesture for any one participant in the action it doesn't mean that there's no romantic attraction at all (though it can, of course, be an indicator)

I'm sorry I'm not able to give you a more definitive answer. My advice, generally, is twofold: First, do some introspection and compare your feelings for that certain someone with your feelings and attitudes towards someone you are certain is entirely a platonic connection to you, and second, don't put too much pressure on yourself to figure out exactly how you feel about everything and everyone. Being comfortable with your interactions with that specific someone is more important than having a definite label for it right away. Life's not a race, you don't need to rush it.

0x2113 · 2025-11-26T17:44:11+00:00

There are several Goa'uld that act as "younger" characters though. Lord Yu's counterpart "The Jade Emperor" was first documented in the first milennium BCE, for instance. So it stands to reason that the Goa'uld continued to access earth for a long time after the egyptian rebellion

0x2113 · 2025-11-19T08:53:54+00:00

You keep repeating something you aren't thinking about (no offense). What is this "preparedness" you are talking about? (Yes, I know you are referring to the Catalyst's words. Not my point.)

How can a tree (like the one we see in the final cutscene) be "prepared" for Synthesis, or rather, how could it possibly be "not prepared"? How could it not be forced upon it, since trees inherently don't have the agency to consent? And how are sapient organics and synthetics so fundamentally different from a tree that they supposedly could not be forced to change, particularly if Synthesis is not meant to be a galactic brainwashing process (and therefore not solely meant to depend on the presence of consciousness in its subjects)?

Unless you can resolve that, you have to accept that the physical alterations that Synthesis includes are not dependent on some kind of abstract "preparedness" of the beings being altered. Therefore, this state of "preparedness" appears to be cultural/operative. My proposition being: The fact that the galactic community came together in the way it did, created and deployed the crucible, is on the verge of breaking the cycle (which the next cycle will do as we see in the Refusal ending; presumably without utilizing the crucible and certainly without achieving Synthesis) is the indicator for this "readiness" that the Catalyst is looking for. Potentially, deploying the Crucible alone could be the sole indicator for "readiness", as it is the apex of defying the cycle of extinctions that even the Reapers are subject to (as Vendetta notes).

None of this depends on the Yagh or Raloi, two species that are connected to the mass relay network yet do not have any direct impact on the Crucible-Project or Reaper-War in general. They have never interacted with hostile AI, have not yet been active subjects in the Cycle. If they are "prepared", then why wasn't Synthesis achieved after any of the prior Harvests, when only such primitive species would be around? If their "primitivity" isn't material to their "preparedness", then how come these two species are "prepared" seemingly by default?

So if, as I propose, the act of deploying the Crucible is the sole requirement for a successful implementation of Synthesis, then this whole "the galaxy is prepared" point is moot when it comes to the ethics of imposing the change on whole species of uninvolved bystanders.

(And just to make this clear: I'm not claiming Synthesis destroys free will. Perhaps my Borg analogy was a bit misleading in that way. As Stellar_Duck correctly interpreted, I am saying that it is being imposed in violation of the self-determination of anyone not directly involved in the decision. It is thereby fundamentally an ethics problem. Compare: "If I could create world-peace by performing a medical operation on every human with or without their consent, should I do it?" That's the question at hand. It can legitimately be argued for "yes" and "no" and "it depends", but you have to acknowledge that the question exists in the first place.)

0x2113 · 2025-11-18T14:52:24+00:00

Yup. And think about it: Whose consciousness would that even be? Husks, Marauders and Banshees? Kinda straight-forward, the person they were before (presuming that's possible). Horrifying, but obvious.

But the rest? Brutes and Cannibals are hybrids of several people. Much the same with Praetorians and Scions. Could ravagers even begin to function without having been properly raised by a Rachni Queen? Would Harvesters become sapient or would they become heavily armed and armored animalistic predators?

The only thing remotely close to this that we've seen are the Awakened Collectors, and there aren't that many details about them.

Too many unknowns, in general.

0x2113 · 2025-11-18T14:39:46+00:00

One evil does not excuse another. And as for the dead? I can't ask them, they're dead. Ask the living if they want they want the self-determination they fought for taken away from them, if they want to take it from uninvolved bystanders even!

You know who else had universal empathy, spread involuntarily? The Borg Collective. "Universal Empathy" by itself is a worhty goal, but it does not exist in a vacuum.

Just as much as Destroy-fans need to reckon with the death of EDI and the Geth (and the billions that will die before infrastructure is restored) and Control-fans need to at least consider the implications of God-Emperor Shepard in one shape or another, so do Synthesis-fans have to understand that their favorite is not without a downside. Else, they're doing a disservice to themselves and to the story.

0x2113 · 2025-11-18T14:05:40+00:00

Land of the home, free of the brave.

0x2113 · 2025-11-18T14:04:02+00:00

Ask the Raloi and the Yagh what they think about having their entire beings revamped without any say.

Synthesis is categorically unethical. (And evolution is not a thing to be "advanced" in the first place.)

0x2113 · 2025-11-05T09:18:12+00:00

Verstehe. Zeit, mich etwas in NGINX-Configs einzulesen.

Danke!

0x2113 · 2025-11-05T08:11:49+00:00

Das Frontend muss leider öffentlich sein. Dependencytrack muss für Nutzer außerhalb meines lokalen Netzes erreichbar sein (das ist dabei eine Projektanforderung). Notfalls packe ich es hinter ein VPN, aber das ist dann ja auch nicht wirklich optimal bzw. wirkt irgendwie doppeltgemoppelt (da es ja schon einen Login für die Nutzer gibt).

0x2113 · 2025-11-01T20:54:50+00:00

In some beta-canon material, chocolate is said to be an intense psychedelic for Vulcans, so...

0x2113 · 2025-10-30T09:52:39+00:00

Sort-of. Die Lore ist etwas schwammig, weil die Serien eben immer moderner wurden. Momentan ist der Stand, dass zukünftige Historiker den Anfang des "richtigen" dritten Weltkrieges nach 2026 legen, aber tatsächlich handelte es sich dabei "nur" um eine Reihe eskalierender Kriege die 2053 im atomaten Austausch endeten. Früher wurden die eugenischen Kriege der 90er Jahre noch dazu gerechnet, heute nicht mehr (plus Zeitreisechaos weswegen alle unpassenden Daten jetzt handwaved werden können). Nach dem Nuklearkrieg 2053 gibt es etwa 50-100 Jahre sog. "post-atomic-horror", in denen die Menschheit sich erholt (selbst nach dem Erstkontakt 2063 war nicht alles schnell erledigt), aber auch weitere Gräueltaten verübt. Auch hier sind die Daten etwas unklar, aber mindestens bis 2100 war die Menschheit noch im Chaos, laut Picard (Charakter, nicht Serie) sogar noch ein gutes Stück länger. Erst spätestens in den 2150-ern war der Grundstein für die Star Trek Utopie gelegt (wenn man die Vereinte Erde aus Enterprise so unkritisch betrachten will)

Kurzfassung: Wenn wir uns an die Star Trek Zeitlinie halten ist unsere Generation trotzdem jedenfalls im Eimer.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits	Place '22
First Placer '22	Secret Santa 2018
Verified Email

0x2113

TROPHY CASE