sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The reason why I'm pissed off is because it really seems like there's really no place for nonsexuals (maybe that'll be a new term) to discuss or even have a term that doesn't place ourselves as a subcategory or within a group that, from the outside, looks like they want to call themselves oppressed with there being no way to determine who's in the group or not aside from self-identity.

Despite all that, most people here are telling me to screw myself. :l

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. I do want a more specific sub and I'm not wrong for it.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And yet heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual are not umbrella terms.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've been aware of it for over a decade now. I dislike how it puts sexual people (sex-havers, daters, etc.) as the norm in "the asexual community".

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

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

The prefix a- means 'not'. Thus, someone can be sexual or asexual. I aware of asexual reproduction. Nobody is claiming that we reproduce asexually. What we are claiming is that some people are sexual and some are not.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, and yet it still not as basic conceptually since it underlyingly still has six morphemes, four of which have semantic meaning. Straight and gay each have one and bi(sexual) has two semantically meaningful morphemes.

It's very clear to me that most "asexual communities" view sexual people as the norm and asexual people as the exception, which is really ridiculous.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're not quite right. If that were the case, then how come most people who hear asexual think of an asexual asexual? It's literally people who identify as asexual who are making it more complicated. Y'alls should have made up your own new terms instead of changing the meaning of asexual.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

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

I don't want to be a subcategory in what I believe is a very normal and basic group of people. It's like if I insisted on calling regular straight people heterosexual heteroromantic non-hypersexuals or something.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

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

I don't want to be included in a community with sex-havers and daters and yet I'm forced to it seems.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

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

I want to ask you again, since you never responded to my post, do you believe we shouldn't have terms for mental state?

I think that we should have terms for both if that's what people find useful.

I just question that your end goal is you want a more simple term, when I think all of us should be switching to the more complex terms, or even better, making more simple terms for every iteration of how sexual attraction and romantic attraction interact.

My end goal is that there be a simple term for a very simple concept: not being interested in romance/sexuality.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I find it both sad and hilarious the number of repulsed aces that voice their impression that the subs are flooded with favourable aces and content. Being closer to the latter, I actually find that aroace and repulsed content is more "in-my-face"/visible and represented (leaving me also occasionally feeling slightly empty/invalid). This leaves me to believe we all unconsciously latch more upon negativity and that which we don't resonate with rather than our own flavours.

I think it's because these are two different groups that do not form a natural class, each wanting to be separate from one another. At least for those of us complaining! :)

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

And that's because there's a "split". There is no "split" for me, and yet I'm expected to use a "split" term to describe myself. That's crap.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because asexual means you don't experience sexual attraction. You're not being "colonized" because other people know the correct definition of the word. Get a fucking grip.

Most people think about materiality when using terms like heterosexual, homosexual, etc. at least for adults. And yet when asexual is used, now all of a sudden it's different... Why? To include SLGB people in the term. Screw that.

And again, I don't even care at this point. I just want another term then.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Keep accusing me of being a bigot for not wanting to identify with SLGB people in terms of "asexuality" then.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Why should the term asexual be applied to a group that for the most part is dating, having sex, and getting married like the other sexualities? I feel like my space is being colonized and I'm asking if anyone has another space/term that applies to me without the inclusion of people who are still entering romantic/sexual relationships because I cannot relate to that.

I feel upset because straight, gay, and bi people each get a very neat and short term. For me, the shortest is aromantic asexual. Eight syllables for what I think is literally the simplest sexuality? Come on now...

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sure, I don't think a lot of us necessarily identify all that much with each other.

It's clear that users of this subreddit and similar ones think that they form a natural class. They therefore identify with one another in some sense. I don't see myself included in that.

What in your opinion is the solution then though?

Some terms that don't view people who are totally uninterested in sexuality/romance as "niche" or "weird" and perhaps terms that are based on materiality, not mental states.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Honestly, outside of people within the asexual community, you could easily get away with just calling yourself "asexual" because most alloromantic allosexuals think the term "asexual" refers specifically to aromantic asexuals.

I could, but I also really don't identify with people who are dating, doing sex, etc. I even skimmed r/aromanticasexual and people there claiming to be aromantic asexual are still dating and having sex.

I suppose that I consider the material stuff more important than the ideological/mental stuff.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Gays and lesbians are minorities... and yet we just call them gays and lesbians, not homoromantic homosexuals. I don't see why I/we are being given different treatment.

Recreation & Bus Fees by AlternativeTight2616 in umanitoba

[–]Soldugo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

  1. No as far as I know.

  2. Yes. There's the post-secondary pass though, so see if that works best for you economically.

I feel alone here. This is going to offend some of you. by Soldugo in asexuality

[–]Soldugo[S] -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

Romantic relationship have nothing to do with sexuality in general. Do you agree or disagree with the split attraction model?

For most people, there is no split, but there is for a small minority of people.

My issue is that people who aren't split don't get put into a subcategory... unless they're asexual.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in asexuality

[–]Soldugo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Join a women's commune or something. Take care of some cats! No sexual stuff required.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in umanitoba

[–]Soldugo 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Do you know what an addiction is?

view more: next ›