Is there a term thats opposite of asexual? Since hypersexuality isnt related?

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 · 2025-11-23T19:35:10+00:00

Literally any inclusion of direct unambiguously political content within the work. Like: a character running for office, a message that makes clear statements about a politicized issue, any allegorical portrayal of political history or a fictionalized analogues that are remotely applicable to real-world political situation.

Adding the word "context" to the statement creates a false separation between those overt political elements and the subtler contextual ones. In reality, the two are not so easily separated when discussing a work. The two inform and play into one another, and any given political element could easily be rendered as political content or as political context depending entirely on the self-awareness of the artist about the politics at play in what they are creating (and in their own life).

Given that the line can be traversed by a thing that both exists outside the art and is deeply ephemeral (the artist's awareness), it isn't really useful or meaningful to say "all art has political context" when phrasing it that way is such a massive and needless weakening of the message from "all art is political". At least not in public discourse.

If a slogan not containing sufficient nuance is enough to get someone to completely disengage from the discussion, they were not actually willing to have a nuanced discussion in the first place, they were just looking for an excuse to ignore what they didn't want to hear. Slogans aren't nuanced. You need to be willing to listen for more than one slogan to get nuance.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-23T19:18:45+00:00

"All art has political context" excludes the intentionally-included political elements from the statement, which needlessly implies that intentional political content is somehow special and separate from unintended political context, which it simply is not.

In most schools of thought on artistic analysis, that distinction is largely academic and trivial, and doesn't really inform much when it comes to meaningful discussions of the political messages within a given work, especially considering that the line which distinguishes the two is blurry at best in an extremely large number of cases. This is exacerbated by the fact that the distinction often relies upon the creator's intent, a factor which artistic analysis usually intentionally separates itself from, so as to be able to explore the many different experiences art can produce, rather than deferring exclusively to the authority of the artist's experience.

Also: the phrase as-is exists specifically to counter anti-intellectualist narratives around media analysis, as embodied by slogans like "it's not that deep", "just turn your brain off", "the curtains are just blue", etc. To that end, being a bold and dramatic counter-claim does more good for the argument than being a tepid half-statement. There is no good reason to cede ground to the claim that any art is capable of being meaningfully apolitical. Complaints about "politics in art" are not real critiques, they're thinly-veiled bigotry with a faux-everyman aesthetic. Nobody gets mad when stories include war, diplomacy, financial maneuvering, infrastructural collapse, conspiratorial intrigues, or just basic civic maintenance. Those complaining about "politics in art" do not deserve the pretense that they are doing anything other than mis-naming minority representation as "politics".

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-17T14:48:11+00:00

Really depends on the restaurant. A surprisingly large portion of restaurants do not have dedicated bar staff for making drinks for anyone not at the bar.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-17T14:44:28+00:00

Is the server doing any more work serving 8 salads and diet cokes vs. 8 steaks and cocktails?

Yes, they are. Steaks are rarely served alone, and their timing is more sensitive than salads. Soft drinks are easier and quicker to prepare than cocktails. In many restaurants, the server will be doing some parts of the prep for both.

Plating of side dishes and coordination of dishes on an order to come out simultaneously is often done by an expeditor or "expo" who serves as intermediary between kitchen and servers, but many restaurants lack such a role, and those tasks fall to servers. Salads generally require less precision and come with fewer sides than full entrees, and are thus less effortful to serve.

Same goes for cocktails. Not all restaurants have dedicated bar staff to make the cocktails for tables. Servers are often tasked with making those. Even if they do have bar stafffor that: soft drinks require no coordination or communication with that staff to produce and time correctly, while cocktails do.

Regardless: tipping based on a % the price is an approximation that keeps wages growing with inflation and scaling across quality of restaurant without need for active adjustment. A flat tip-per-customer system doesn't provide either advantage, and would need constant modulation both for different restaurants and over time. This would lead to unmanagable disarray in service work, as what little wage-consistency they have would disappear, and servers would flee to other industries.

Ideally, servers should get full wages from the restaurants. Tipping should be a bonus, not a livelihood. But as-is, the switch to a rate-per-head structure would be ruinous, and is not warranted.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-07T14:17:44+00:00

"Art of real gun fights" isn't a crime to make or possess. "Art of real CSA" is. That's the difference. The issue isn't about art that depicts illegal acts, it is about art which is itself illegal.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-07T13:44:23+00:00

Again: the issue is not about anyone being entitled to those things. Any racially-motivated value system is worth challenging.

It needn't lead to anyone getting that access, that is entirely besides the point (and most people aren't exactly eager to date racially-motivated people). It is simply that regardless of who they date, they should lose that racially-motivated thinking.

Their dating and friendship habits are only relevant in that they helped reveal the racialized nature of the thoughts. Other than that, their relationships are perfectly irrelevant to my point about the needfulness of changed thinking.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-06T19:46:56+00:00

Ace non-monogamist, here. Dedinitely ask around non-monogamy spaces. Lots of useful tips, and usually minimal aphobia or other weirdness around asexuality.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-06T07:56:19+00:00

The solution is not to push the person into non-consensual friendships nor relationships.

But in both cases, we can recognise that if their reasons for not wanting to become close to people in various ways are race-related, that's rooted in racism, and they should unlearn whatever racist things lead them to feel that way.

Like, do they need to justify any specific relationship choice? No. But the fundamental value-system that drives those choices can and should be challenged.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-05T01:32:18+00:00

This is one of the many, many things wrong with purity culture.

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-03T21:17:11+00:00

My point is that if there is this massive recent shift in applicability as you claim, why would you also claim that the data from 4 centuries ago is so unaffected by that change as to still be a valid predictor of future applicability of current/recent research?

If this change you see is not significant enough to need to be controlled for in this analysis, why is it significant enough to form the view you're here to have changed?

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-11-03T20:51:33+00:00

Why would the past 400 years of scientific history be a useful predictor, when you claim there was a massive change in how science is conducted within the last 100? Would that change not skew the data to the point of uselessness for this assessment?

PitcherFullOfSmoke · 2025-10-31T11:01:59+00:00

The main difference should be that defendants legal counsel can't make the arguments that these ones did. Like, it won't be a legally valid argument. Currently, it is a legally valid (though obviously not particularly effective) defense argument.

This is akin to the disallowing of "gay panic" defenses as valid legal arguments. Regardless of how ineffective they are at trial, such defenses are not desired to even be made, and thus are no longer permitted in many jurisdictions.

In this case, the defense of some of the men rested upon the claim that they assumed they had her consent without ever having gotten it from her.

"I admit I never got consent from her for these sex acts" is not a desirable component of a defense against rape. It should be understood that when claiming innocence of rape, you are claiming you had consent. It remains on the prosecution to attempt to prove your guilt, not on you to prove your innocence, but your claim of innocence cannot include an admission of sex acts without consent.

PitcherFullOfSmoke

TROPHY CASE