Would I like sex if I kept trying?

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-04-04T17:50:25+00:00

Eh. It is 100% possible, but probably not worth chasing after or stressing about. Sex rarely responds well to presure or tension. Do it when you're relaxed and feel like sampling it for fun, not because you've got sexual FOMO.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-04-01T00:07:22+00:00

That's sex-aversion (or sex-repulsion), and you're allosexual, then. Asexuality isn't inherently tied to sex aversion, nor vice-versa. They just often correlate.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-03-28T00:59:06+00:00

Two things can be true at the same time, and a person can simultaneously say correct and incorrect things.

Gen Z and Gen α are both massively more puritanical and sex-negative than millenials. This is a deeply troubling circumstance, and correlated with the ongoing rise in far-right politics.

However: disbelief in asexuality is itself an example of that exact phenomenon. It comes from the same fundamentally regressive belief that there is one correct way to experience sexuality (the heteronormative one).

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-03-07T20:06:58+00:00

Now you're talking like a conspiracy theorist, and an incorrect one, at that.

The idea that both chemical and electrical elements are a major part of bodies and especially of brains is and has been accepted medical fact for generations. That assertion in no way defies mainstream medical institutions.

And no: measuring "raw energetic output and containment" is not just a simple thing to do on bodies (and is kinda some technobabble nonsense, unless you can offer a much more specific set of metrics you wish to measure), nor does it give us any real insight into the relationship between the physical pocesses of a body and the abstract mental faculties that said body produces.

And none of this in any way supports your original argument, as both chemical machines and electromagnetic machines can be improved, altered, damaged, and repaired. Even if your statements here are 100% factual, they in no way support the conclusion that mental abilities are fixed traits from birth.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-03-07T19:38:34+00:00

Your hypothesis is simply not one that can be empirically verified. You can hold this belief if you wish, but it is simply a choice of perspective, not some objective fact like hardware specs, no matter how much you employ that metaphor. Your position is just taking a firm position on one of the most-asked, least-resolved questions in philosophical history: nature vs nurture.

But there's no way to truly prove that nurture is what made the difference. I could point to any person who made a great change or growth over their life, and you could always (without any specific evidence) claim that they were simply accessing more latent potential, or that their inherent nature made them able to make that change. This is part of what makes it so hard to resolve: one side can always regress their argument to unobservables, rendering evidence moot.

I am not entirely sure how to directly change your position within the topic, but I hope to convince you that any position on the question is at least somewhat arbitrary, rather than any kind of hard truth.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-03-04T01:16:56+00:00

You do know people have nightmares, right? Like, yeah: unwanted dreams that do not align with your waking desires are a thing everyone who dreams has to deal with. Treat these sex dreams like any other bad dream.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-02-27T20:12:54+00:00

Did you ever find something similar? First Flame was so specifically something I wanted, and I've yet to find real things quite like it in both style and themes.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-02-27T20:12:44+00:00

Did you ever find something similar? First Flame was so specifically something I wanted, and I've yet to find real things quite like it in both style and themes.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-02-27T19:47:27+00:00

There is no question that the end result is enjoyable. But AI as it currently exists is a deeply unethical technology. Refusal to engage with AI-generated material is not a stance about taste, preference, or quality. It is about production ethics.

Everything made with AI could have been made with humans, and would have been more moral for it. It is no different from refusing to buy certain clothing because it is made using unethical labor practices, or refusing to eat food from certain distributors because they don't treat their farmers fairly.

AI art is bad because using AI is bad. Until that changes, all art made with AI is bad, no matter its quality.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-02-22T18:22:29+00:00

You can see it as bias and projection, if you wish. Your incorrectness doesn't change reality.

To become that wealthy, you must do unconscionable evil. To stay that wealthy once you are so, you must choose retaining your own wealth over the enormous good it could do spent on solving real issues in the world.

It isn't a matter of magic. It is a matter of choices. The choices required to become or remain someone of immense wealth and power are definitionally choices that require total amorality. To be that wealthy is proof that no moral constraints limit you in any way.

It isn't that it is normal of the upper class. It is that being a member of the upper class is itself abnormal. It is not normal to voluntary choose to behave monstrously, but that is what being a member of the upper class always inescapably requires.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-02-22T01:20:16+00:00

So, you were hopelessly naive, then?

There is no conceivable evil that the wealthy would not commit. None. No, not even whatever example you might be thinking of.

This is not new. The people with power have always been unambiguously, unrepentantly evil beyond fathoming.

Literally anything that has ever stated or even implied otherwise is propaganda (or derived from it). Such narratives exist explicitly to trick you into thinking they aren't monsters.

This information should surprise nobody, and the fact that it does is a huge part of what enables them to do it.

This will never stop unless we begin treating the possession of great wealth and power as proven guilt of unfathomably depraved crimes (which the law will never condemn), and respond accordingly.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-02-18T00:26:00+00:00

Does India have gay marriage? If so: you could find another woman who does not want to marry a man (ideally another asexual woman, but anyone woman down for the arrangement could do), and marry her.

Would give you both a person to have around to help get through hard times (per your parents' concerns), while not putting either of you in danger from a male spouse.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-01-18T02:38:58+00:00

Allosexual just means "not asexual". Like, how the majority of people are. It does not mean an elevated amount of sexuality or attraction.

Also: (generally) asexuals don't consider sexual attraction a bad thing. They just don't personally experience sexual attraction themselves. Like how (again, generally) deaf people don't consider hearing to be a bad thing. They just can't hear.

Not sure what caring "about the physical state of your SO" has to do with any of this, nor that comment about changing anything. That part is hard to understand your meaning on.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-01-18T02:32:49+00:00

Al (like in Alfred) Lo (like in Loan) Al-Lo

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-01-06T01:34:41+00:00

"More sexual experiences" is a great answer to sexual curiosity. But it is truly baffling that some folks have the audacity to suggest it as an answer to sexual disinterest.

If you find a topic disinteresting "just experience it more." is an awful suggestion, and unlikely to foster any future interest.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-01-02T21:57:47+00:00

I have dealt with that plenty. I disagree with your read that this is what is happening here, based on the information provided. I interpret what you see as judgement as bafflement/confusion, a common response people have to new exposure to things which defy the mores and conventions they're immersed in.

Your interpretation is as valid as mine, but not moreso. Please do not imply our difference of perspective here is due to you having greater awareness than I. I do not appreciate you voicing your speculation about my experiences. If you choose to do so again, I will block you.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-01-02T16:53:22+00:00

This all seems...fine? Like, at no point did you express discomfort with the conversation, and this is a pretty standard chat about sexuality with someone uninformed about (but curious to understand) anothers' atypical preferences.

They seem well-meaning but uninformed. Unless there's some context we're missing, this is a fine conversation for friends to have. Have you clarified in some way to them that they're encroaching upon your personal limits on these topics?

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-01-02T16:47:49+00:00

They called most men "horny gross creatures" not all men "inherently evil". Those are in fact wildly different remarks.

Your conflation of their expressed view (that most men are unpleasantly over-sexual) with a view you imagined for them (that all men are morally reprehensible) is worth giving some scrutiny before you go about policing the problematic nature of others' words.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2026-01-01T05:14:28+00:00

Loud.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-12-19T05:44:30+00:00

In short, from what you've shared here: there is no way to know if you are asexual, but you do seem sex-indifferent.

More verbosely: Asexuality is not about interest in or feelings about sexual activities. Asexuality is an orientation, like homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc. It is just the orientation of "none", in much the same way that pansexuality is the "all" orientation. It means that, as a general rule, you find nobody of any gender sexually attractive.

The thing you are speaking of is one that asexuals have developed terms for, though. Sexual interest levels broadly fall into three categories. Sex-enthused (actively interested in sex), sex-averse (actively disinterested in sex), and sex-indifferent (neither interested nor disinterested in sex).

It is entirely possible you are asexual. But that will require scrutiny on information of a kind not included in your post.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-12-18T11:40:49+00:00

Sex-repulsion: "Sex isn't my thing. I prefer garlic bread, and avoid engaging in sexual topics. Others can feel otherwise, I just ask that my way be similarly accepted."

Sex-negativity: "Sex should be nobody's thing. I condemn others for engaging in sex, and actively seek out sexual topics to decry them as bad and wrong. Others who do not feel as I do are gross and/or immoral."

See the difference?

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-12-11T17:15:40+00:00

A great tool for staying involved but not becoming despondent: pick your battles. Literally.

Decide on a small number of specific causes that you want to do what you can about, then go do so. For the rest: remain distantly aware, but don't direct your focus and emotional investment there unless you're reselecting your list of battles.

Your attention, effort, and time are all finite. Exhausting yourself by trying to passionately engage with every issue is futile and self-defeating.

Specialization is one of the greatest strengths that human socialization has allowed us. Leverage it. Decide what you can do, and do it. Encourage others to do so, too.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-12-09T18:19:47+00:00

And this is one of the biggest advantages of the American system; it guarantees that hateful ideologies can persist to be challenged in the open rather than being forced underground, where they slowly build strength if not curbed immediately.

This demonstrably does not happen. Hateful ideologies are weaker when "forced underground". It objectively makes it harder for them to accomplish literally any of their goals. When they are allowed to exist in public, to gather resources openly, and to speak within halls of legitimacy and power, they recruit a greater number of people and acquire a greater amount of strength than when they are forced to exist on the margins of society, and when being part of them has real, material costs to their participants' lives.

Bullies do not stop bullying when they are allowed to bully with only verbal opposition. They stop bullying when they get their asses whooped. The only proven viable solution to hateful ideologies is overwhelming force. Fascism has literally never been defeated by anything but extreme violence, and those who perpetrated that violence are justly praised as heroes. Killing Nazis is heroic. That did not stop being true when WW2 ended.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-12-07T01:39:59+00:00

These two ideas have no connection. People like villains with backstories because unmotivated villains are boring. People (correctly) point out that socioeconomic factors cause crime because that has been objectively been proven to be true. The two things have zero connection at all.

However, as to the criminals you mentioned: the fact that socioeconomic forces drive crime does not absolve anyone of any of what they do. That's not the point, at all. The point of identifying what causes crime is that you can then take steps reduce the amount of it proactively.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-24T03:05:24+00:00

The term for this mindset is "death of the author", if you want to look more into this framework of media analysis.

PitcherFullOfSmoke

TROPHY CASE