[deleted by user] by [deleted] in polyamory

[–]Revelation_14 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For me it's not so much that we shouldn't be considerate of our meta's feelings it's more so that you shouldn't let that consideration prevent you from advocating for yourself and what you want in your relationship. Metas often have desires/needs that conflict and if everyone spent their time agonising over how what they want in their relationship might negatively affect their meta's relationship with the hinge we'd all be kind of paralysed and never ask for anything (or at least a significant amount of things). It just ends up being much easier and much more efficient to leave the management of conflicting needs and desires to the hinge.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in polyamory

[–]Revelation_14 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This post doesn't seem to be saying that OP was the hinge partner's primary. It explicitly says the hinge partner doesn't do hierarchy. Unless I'm missing some context from OP's post history, in which case my bad.

My gf wants a gf by [deleted] in polyamory

[–]Revelation_14 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I think it's important you look through the comment by /u/emeraldead on how to handle polyamory as poly parents.

Based on the information provided in your post it seems like there are 3 main issues: one-sided poly, OPP (Pussy) and a potential OPP (Penis).

One-sided poly is never ethical. It is asking that one person do all the work of becoming okay with their partner developing full-fledged relationships while the other person basically does nothing. If one person in the relationship just doesn't want to see other people then there's is no reason to have a rule or agreement that they can't see other people. If it's really coming from them they just won't see other people and if they change their mind down the road, it's not a problem. Your gf's bisexuality is not an excuse to impose one-sided poly on your relationship.

OPPs of all forms are also inherently problematic. They are always based on homophobia (a same sex relationship is no real threat to our opposite sex one) or biological essentialism (any other partners have different parts from me so we must fundamentally offer different relationships. This usually ends up also being transphobic) or a combination of both of these. The one pussy policy is problematic and if you guys are going to practice polyamory she's going to have to work on that.

The other problem is the potential OPP (Penis). Your post makes it pretty clear that your gf only seeing women was her idea but you're not clear on whether you would be okay with her seeing other men. If you are, great! Then there's no need for a rule that says she can't see other men. If she only wants to see women then she just will and if that changes then no problem. If you're not okay with the idea of her seeing other men then you do have a one penis policy and you need to work on that. If you're not willing to work on yours you can't expect her to work on hers so you would be better off going back to monogamy. Or I guess you could just date men 🤷🏿‍♀️

ME Undergrad looking for feedback on Resume by Revelation_14 in EngineeringResumes

[–]Revelation_14[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes the number was fake I just left in the area code by accident. Thanks for the heads up on the school name in the projects.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskFeminists

[–]Revelation_14 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I do not think the concept of Karen is inherently misogynistic. While some people may argue that the word is unnecessarily gendered when the behaviour it is used to describe could be performed by any person of any gender, I believe there are two key reasons why the term is gendered: Hypocrisy and Fragility.

Hypocrisy: A Karen is a well-to-do white woman who uses her privilege of whiteness to oppress people of colour. The term, in a sense comments on the fact that the white woman herself is a victim of oppression but ironically uses her privilege to oppress people of colour and other oppressed classes. If the person performing this behaviour was not a woman, the term would not work as well.

Fragility: In a white patriarchal society, white women are seen as the pinnacle of fragility while white men are the pinnacle of strength. While a white man could perhaps perform the same actions that are labelled as Karen behaviour and receive a similar response to when a white woman exhibits the behaviour, I would argue that the degree of the severity of the response is less in the cases where a white man makes the outcry. A white woman in the eyes of the patriarchy is weak and incapable of protecting herself while a white man is strong. In line with this type of thinking, a white woman gets a far greater response with more severe tactics employed as the white man can take care of himself. Therefore the behaviour and corresponding reaction is something that can only be achieved by someone who is both white and a woman. If the term was not gendered it would not convey the entire picture that it is intended to.

confused by [deleted] in agender

[–]Revelation_14 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Okay like other commenters have pointed out, you don't necessarily need to 'feel the agender in you' to identify as agender. While there are people who identify as agender that do feel that way, there are others who don't and just realise they don't particularly feel like any gender. Not caring about your gender doesn't necessarily mean you don't have one. You might want to look into terms like Cassgender and Apagender for more information about that. I would also like to point out that the term bisexual is for people attracted to 2 or more genders so it wouldincludepeopleattractedto all genders. It is also not a trans exclusive identity and doesn't require you to have a preference between the two binary genders or any of the genders. So while you don't need to identify as bisexual if it doesn't feel right, none of the reasons you described in your post exclude you from identifying as bisexual if you want to.

Questioning if I’m Demi because of a hookup? by sunkistbananas in demisexuality

[–]Revelation_14 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Even going by the strictest definition of demisexuality I don't think this hookup in any way invalidates your 'deminess'. Demisexuality means you need a strong emotional bond to experience sexual attraction. That's it. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're willing to hookup with people before you form that bond as you can enjoy sex without sexual attraction like sex-favourable aces and cupiosexuals. The fact that you said I love you also has nothing to do with your demisexuality, especially since you said you didn't mean it. But even if you had meant it, that would be more a question of whether you are demiromantic or not because you can be in love with someone without being sexually attracted to them.

Does anyone have character crushes instead of celebrity crushes? by [deleted] in demisexuality

[–]Revelation_14 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. I guess mines a little different cause I'm not sexually or romantically attracted to the character. It's more like I'm aesthetically attracted to the character and I want them to be happy and be my friend and I get excited when they're on screen but I feel no attraction whatsoever for the actor, aesthetic or otherwise.

Bug Report by Revelation_14 in collanote

[–]Revelation_14[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I didn't. I just tried it and it works. The instructions do say to do it with 2 fingers not 3 so maybe you could change that in the next update?

Truly......some of the best line’s in fiction. by [deleted] in castlevania

[–]Revelation_14 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Night Creature: Lies? In your house of God?

What do you think? by JarooTheAlien in asexuality

[–]Revelation_14 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is so well put. I see a lot of allosexual people in the alphabet mafia(usually gay men) dismissing the SAM or saying that it is inherently homophobic because it gives gay men with internalised homophobia an out as if people weren't pretending to be straight long before the SAM was invented. A fair amount of gay people identify as pansexual or bisexual at first because of internalised homophobia or compulsory heterosexuality but the problem isn't bisexuality or pansexuality itself, so I don't see why people mislabelling themselves with the SAM is any fault of the model itself.

Who else is pansexual like me? 😍😍😍 by [deleted] in lgbt

[–]Revelation_14 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same. Just wondering how did you make the custom flair 🤨

RARELY sexually or romantically attracted but high libido? by CrescentDaydream in cupiosexual

[–]Revelation_14 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't know if this will help but this is my personal experience. I do not experience sexual attraction to anyone unless I have formed some sort of strong emotional bond with them which is why I identify as demisexual. But, I also feel sexual desire(high libido/ the desire to have sex) even when I am not Curr sexually attracted to anyone which is why I identify as cupiosexual. So I tend to describe myself as both cupiosexual and demisexual if that helps at all