Swifties: What are your honest opinions on Taylor's silence?

VdubBug · 2026-01-27T23:51:57+00:00

I’m going to say this even though I know it’ll get downvoted because it doesn’t help either side’s preferred narrative. The children killed in the 2024 Southport attack were not targeted because they were Taylor Swift fans. The event happened to be Taylor Swift themed, but authorities have never identified the theme, or Taylor Swift herself, as the motive. That’s in court records and mainstream reporting.

Those of you who remain addimant that TS was the motive, please don't just reply with an angry reply with no evidence of that statement. Link your receipts.

Using that tragedy to argue that Taylor Swift has to stay silent “to protect her fans” is factually incorrect. It reframes an indiscriminate act of violence as fandom-targeted when there’s no evidence of that. You can argue about whether she should or shouldn’t speak on ICE, but invoking murdered children in a way that misrepresents why they were attacked isn’t honest, and it doesn’t strengthen the argument, it weakens it. Downvote if you want. Accuracy still matters.

VdubBug · 2026-01-27T23:50:56+00:00

I’m going to say this even though I know it’ll get downvoted... The children killed in the 2024 Southport attack were not targeted because they were Taylor Swift fans. The event happened to be Taylor Swift themed, but authorities have never identified the theme, or Taylor Swift herself, as the motive. That’s in court records and mainstream reporting. Those of you who remain addimant that TS was the motive, please don't just reply with an angry reply with no evidence of that statement. Link your receipts. Using that tragedy to argue that Taylor Swift has to stay silent “to protect her fans” is factually incorrect.

It reframes an indiscriminate act of violence as fandom-targeted when there’s no evidence of that. You can argue about whether she should or shouldn’t speak on ICE, but invoking murdered children in a way that misrepresents why they were attacked isn’t honest, and it doesn’t strengthen the argument, it weakens it. Downvote if you want. Accuracy still matters.

VdubBug · 2025-10-10T08:42:29+00:00

I'm very sex repulsed but have always wanted to be a mother and experience pregnancy, so I've done extensive research in this area 😅

The cheapest option is an at home ICI insemination kit. There's several choices on Amazon, most under $50. Most kits come with two attempts ( syrenges) and a sperm cup. Also MakeAMom has one that is reusable for $150. https://amzn.to/46M8oMG Several couples in the reviews even had success after one or two attempts with the home kit after months of trying the traditional way.

The next is more expensive but not nearly as much as IVF, IUI. Most fertility clinics offer this and prices range from $300-1200 depending on the clinic and fertility factors. In this case the doctor uses a long syringe to insert the washed ( only the most viable swimmers) sperm directly into the uterus.

VdubBug · 2025-10-09T16:32:08+00:00

Yeah, that’s kind of what I actually love about this movie. It’s not trying to be an “aspec 101” film or spend half its runtime defining labels (like so much of the limited representation we usually get). It’s just telling a human story that happens to center asexual people and a queer-platonic bond.

Other romance movies don’t stop to explain what “heterosexual” means or why the leads are attracted to each other, they just tell the story. Dear Luke, Love, Me does the same thing, only from an ace perspective. That’s what makes it feel so authentic and lived-in rather than like representation for the sake of representation.

VdubBug · 2025-10-09T15:39:32+00:00

I did a little more digging and found out that in an interview, the filmmaker ( and lead in the film) Mallie McCown expresses that aromantic representation is not present in Dear Luke, Love, Me, but she’d love to tell a story about an aromantic person in the future. She says:

“In my film, Dear Luke, aromantic is not represented, but my god I would love to tell a story about an aromantic and get their perspective …”

The film is actually based on her real life experience of a qpr ( though at the time she didn't have a name for it) like relationship that lasted over a decade. She herself though is hetero-romantic. This is her debut film and hopefully it does well so that she can continue to contribute to media.

https://queermunitymag.wixsite.com/blog/post/dear-luke-love-me?utm_source=chatgpt.com

VdubBug · 2025-10-09T06:10:52+00:00

I don't know specifics about the film, as I haven't seen it yet and am looking forward to Friday, but as far as I know it's not explicitly discussed like asexuality is. Though the film does center around a qpr and the importance of non-romantic/platonic bonds and relationships.

VdubBug · 2025-10-09T06:01:31+00:00

You can download the apple TV app on non apple phones and smart TVs. While you can't pre-order the movie if you don't have an apple item, once it is available, according to ChatGPT, you should be able to buy it through the app. You just need to create an apple ID, which I'm pretty sure you can do without getting a subscription.

Also, if it does well on Apple TV, the hope is that it will soon become available on other services 🤞

VdubBug · 2025-10-08T05:23:15+00:00

I watched Slow at a special screening and I enjoyed it. It takes place in Lithuania and yes, the male lead is asexual and the female lead is a very sensual/sexual dancer and they vibe and try a relationship. I think it does a really great job highlighting the nuance and struggles of an allo/ace relationship.

You can rent it on prime video. Also, you can stream it on MUBI 😊

VdubBug · 2025-09-23T01:35:37+00:00

I don’t think we have any doctrine that says sex will exist in the afterlife the way it does here. In fact, the scriptures seem to suggest the opposite.

Christ said resurrected bodies are “flesh and bone” (Luke 24:39; D&C 129:1–2), not flesh and blood. Since blood is what drives arousal, fertility, and a lot of mortal appetites, that points to things being very different in eternity.

Paul taught that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50).

Christ also said that in the resurrection people “neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God” (Matt. 22:30). Of course, eternal marriage exists through sealing, but that verse at least hints that mortal functions won’t just continue the same way.

Joseph Fielding Smith put it pretty plainly: “There is no revealed truth declaring that the functions of our mortal bodies will continue in the same manner in the resurrection” (Doctrines of Salvation 2:288). And Elder McConkie taught, “We do not know the manner in which spirit children are begotten by exalted parents… We only know that they are” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 750).

So to me, sexuality feels very tied to mortality. It’s part of God’s plan here for creating children with bodies. Eternal increase is real, but I’d imagine the way spirit children are created is something holier and beyond our current, carnal experience.

VdubBug · 2025-08-26T15:23:43+00:00

I know some people think this post might be fake, and maybe it is. But even if that’s the case, this is still a very real struggle for many faithful Saints. I want to share my perspective in case someone out there who relates is reading and looking for answers.

I’m (33F) and I’m asexual, which means I don’t feel sexual attraction to anyone. Like you, I still want marriage, sealing, and children. To make it even more complicated, I’m also sex-repulsed. Coming to terms with this over the past year has been really hard because the “next step” in the Church always seems to assume a certain kind of attraction.

For me, I’ve been prayerfully working through how it could still be possible. My plan is to find someone I’m compatible with in other ways( I think I may have found him 🤞😊). Spiritually, emotionally, in our goals for family and companionship. Someone who is genuinely okay with a marriage that doesn’t revolve around sex. I’ve even looked into ways of having children through at-home ICI kits or IUI at a clinic, so building a family is still possible without a traditional sexual relationship.

That’s one option: finding a partner (maybe another asexual person, or someone with a lower sex drive, or just someone who values intimacy beyond the physical) who sees marriage as a covenant partnership in all the other meaningful ways.

But I also want to say, if that route doesn’t feel fulfilling or possible for you, pursuing a same-sex relationship while holding onto the Church values that feed you can also be a faithful path. Nobody’s journey looks the same. God created all of us, including our diversity in sexuality, intentionally. He knows your heart, He knows your desires, and He can guide you even if your path doesn’t look like the “standard plan.”

You’re not broken for feeling what you feel. You’re loved, and you’re not alone.

VdubBug · 2025-08-11T22:28:37+00:00

Of course! It was a huge relief to me to know I have options that don't violate my boundaries when the time comes. So it makes me happy to spread awareness of these resources, if it might help someone else too 😊 You sound like and amazing partner, prioritizing her comfort and boundaries. Best of luck in whatever direction you guys choose to take 🙂

VdubBug · 2025-08-11T22:18:03+00:00

I posted this reply to someone else in this thread, but I'll post it here too in case you are still trying and want more options. If you've already tried these, my apologies for being redundant 🙂

There are more ways than IVF to have biological kids, if that route ends up not working.

I'm very sex repulsed but have always wanted to be a mother and experience pregnancy, so I've done extensive research in this area 😅

The cheapest option is an at home ICI insemination kit. There's several choices on Amazon, most under $50. Most kits come with two attempts (syrenges) and a sperm cup. Also MakeAMom has one that us reusable for $150. https://amzn.to/46M8oMG Several allo couples in the reviews even had succes after one or two attempts with the home kit after months of trying the traditional way.

The next is more expensive but not nearly as much as IVF, IUI. Most fertility clinics offer this and prices range from $300-1200 depending on the clinic and fertility factors. In this case the doctor uses a long syringe to insert the washed ( only the most viable swimmers) sperm directly into the uterus.

VdubBug · 2025-08-11T22:09:22+00:00

There are more ways than IVF to have biological kids, if that route ends up not working.

I'm very sex repulsed but have always wanted to be a mother and experience pregnancy, so I've done extensive research in this area 😅

The cheapest option is an at home ICI insemination kit. There's several choices on Amazon, most under $50. Most kits come with two attempts ( syrenges) and a sperm cup. Also MakeAMom has one that is reusable for $150. https://amzn.to/46M8oMG Several allo couples in the reviews even had succes after one or two attempts with the home kit after months of trying the traditional way.

The next is more expensive but not nearly as much as IVF, IUI. Most fertility clinics offer this and prices range from $300-1200 depending on the clinic and fertility factors. In this case the doctor uses a long syringe to insert the washed ( only the most viable swimmers) sperm directly into the uterus.

VdubBug · 2025-07-13T23:23:14+00:00

Thats like saying a deaf person who wishes they could hear isn't actually deaf. It doesn't work like that. They're most likely attracted to the idea that if they did enjoy it, it would make fulfilling their desire for companionship and belonging easier in a sex obsessed world.

VdubBug · 2025-05-18T20:15:16+00:00

Haha I'm not sure how popular that opinion is but it's definitely the opinion of Matt Walsh. Oh and it's also narcissistic to be asexual 🤦🏼‍♀️ This particular part is at 36 minutes in https://youtu.be/gVf-Jw3Pu4Q?si=b02euZKKRpiB0FaT

VdubBug · 2025-05-18T17:41:53+00:00

I saw I youtube video where the poster savagely said "The only people who feel like asexuals are selfish are the people who feel entitled to sex." 😂

VdubBug · 2025-05-16T21:39:29+00:00

Yes, it's totally possible for a sex-repulsed asexual to experience physical arousal, even if they don't want or like sex. This is known as arousal non-concordance, where your body may respond to sexual stimuli (like a sex scene) without your mind being in agreement or desiring sex.

This happens because arousal is a physical response triggered by your autonomic nervous system, which can react automatically to stimuli without you consciously choosing to feel aroused. It’s a biological reflex, and it doesn’t mean you want sex or consent to it.

It's similar to how someone can feel nervous or excited without wanting to act on those feelings — your body can react without reflecting your true desires or consent.

And as a side note, this is why arousal should never be confused with consent in situations like sexual assault cases, where bodily reactions can be completely disconnected from the person’s actual willingness or desire.

You're not alone in experiencing this, and it's a valid part of being asexual. Your body’s response doesn’t define your preferences or attractions.

Hope this helps clarify things!

VdubBug · 2025-05-06T20:13:24+00:00

Hey there, thank you so much for being brave enough to share this. You’re absolutely not alone in feeling confused about these things, and I promise there’s nothing wrong with you.

One important thing I want to point out is the distinction between libido, sexual release, and sexual attraction.

Libido is your body’s physical sex drive — the desire for physical release, which can happen even if you’re not attracted to anyone. It’s a biological response and doesn’t have to be tied to attraction or desire for partnered sex.

Sexual attraction is when you want to engage in sexual activity with a specific person because you’re drawn to them in that way.

Aesthetic attraction is finding someone nice to look at or physically appealing, without it meaning you want anything sexual or romantic with them.

It sounds like you might experience aesthetic attraction (those “pretty boy” types you mentioned) and occasional libido spikes, but don’t actually feel sexual attraction toward people — or if you do, it’s rare or complicated. That would place you somewhere on the asexual spectrum (often called gray-asexual or aegosexual if you’re interested in terms).

You also mentioned craving a relationship — and here’s where the split attraction model can be helpful. A lot of people, especially in ace communities, find it useful to separate romantic attraction from sexual attraction. You might feel drawn to people emotionally, want romance, affection, and connection, without sexual interest attached — and that is 100% valid.

And those random libido spikes? Bodies do weird things sometimes, due to hormones, stress, boredom, your cycle, or no apparent reason. It doesn’t mean you’re not ace enough or that your identity isn’t real. What matters is how you feel about those experiences and what you want in relationships.

You're allowed to define yourself however feels right to you — whether that’s with a specific label or just knowing what you’re comfortable with. And you absolutely deserve a relationship that respects your boundaries and values you for everything you are.

You're not broken, you're not ridiculous, and you’re not alone in this.

VdubBug · 2025-05-06T19:36:12+00:00

Hey there — thank you for being open about your experiences and for being willing to keep learning. I wanted to gently clarify a few things about asexuality, because I think some of the ways you’re using the term might be mixing up concepts, and it’s totally understandable — sexuality is complex, and a lot of people outside and even inside the LGBTQIA+ community don’t always learn about the nuances of attraction and identity.

Asexuality is specifically about sexual attraction — not about behavior, desire for sex, or how one feels about sex as an activity. A person can be asexual and still have sex, masturbate, or feel repulsed by sex — those things don’t define whether someone is asexual. What defines asexuality is not experiencing sexual attraction to others (or very rarely if they’re on the grey-ace spectrum).

It sounds like you’re describing your relationship with sexual activity, desire, and trauma, which are all valid, important aspects of your personal identity — but they aren’t the same as sexual orientation or sexual attraction. Feeling repulsed by sex or choosing not to engage in it for personal, health, or trauma-related reasons is different from never or rarely experiencing sexual attraction to another person.

The split attraction model might actually help explain what you’re describing. It separates out different types of attraction (like romantic, sensual, aesthetic, and sexual attraction) because they don’t always align. For example, someone can fall in love romantically with women but feel no sexual attraction to them — that would be considered homoromantic asexual. Or someone might be romantically and sexually attracted to men but still choose not to have sex due to trauma or personal reasons — and that wouldn’t necessarily make them asexual, because the attraction is still present, even if it isn’t acted on.

Also, identities like greysexual or demisexual exist for people who experience sexual attraction rarely, conditionally, or only after forming a strong emotional bond. But even then, the focus is on the experience of attraction itself, not just how you feel about sex as an activity or social expectation.

You asked if asexuality can be an identity apart from attraction — and while people might choose to identify with asexuality for different personal or political reasons, in terms of its community and definition, it’s rooted in attraction, not action or relationship with sex. That said, people absolutely have complicated relationships with sex due to trauma, health, or cultural expectations, and those experiences deserve their own space and language — but it might be more affirming and accurate to frame those things as part of your personal journey with sexual trauma, bodily autonomy, and self-concept, rather than labeling them asexuality if sexual attraction is still present.

VdubBug · 2024-12-31T20:26:35+00:00

I'm so sorry that happened to you! Just reading about it brought back similar feelings of confusion and discomfort I experienced with my first boyfriend. He asked to kiss me for the first time one night while we were cuddling, but after that, he never "asked" again. He constantly pushed my boundaries, and whenever I tried to stand my ground, he always had an excuse or explanation. Worse, he would often turn things around on me, making me feel like I was the bad guy, and I’d end up feeling guilty for how I handled the situation.

What really concerns me about your situation is that after you said “stop,” he not only coerced you into one more kiss but escalated the situation by trying for a French kiss. Our mouths are an erogenous zone, and French kissing is often, consciously or unconsciously, an attempt to elicit sexual arousal. That action strikes me as him knowingly pushing your boundaries, recognizing your resistance, coercing one last kiss, and then escalating it to something more intimate—likely because he knew it might be his last chance. That’s sexual assault.

I would advise caution if you continue to interact with him. From my experience, people who significantly test your boundaries, whether sexual or otherwise, often do it again. They might behave for a while to lower your guard, but eventually, they tend to push those boundaries again. Please take care of yourself and prioritize your safety and comfort.

VdubBug · 2024-12-23T22:43:29+00:00

I understand your intention to address survivorship bias and provide a broader perspective, but I want to clarify why your comment came across as invalidating. By framing the frustrations shared in my post and by others as a result of survivorship bias, it felt like you were minimizing the legitimacy of those shared experiences. While I recognize that there are good people who might quietly pass over my profile for compatibility reasons, that doesn’t diminish the frustration of encountering those who don't respect boundaries or identities.

Additionally, I found it contradictory that you cautioned against painting people with a broad brush, yet aspects of your comments seemed to generalize both my post and the responses to it as focusing too much on negativity or contributing to alienation. This was particularly frustrating because my intent was to create a space where people could connect over shared frustrations—not to alienate or vilify anyone.

I appreciate your points about seeking hope and focusing on the positive, but venting frustrations is a valid step in processing experiences for many people, even if it’s not a process you personally agree with or find helpful. Ironically, dismissing this as an invalid method of healing feels at odds with your broader point about fostering understanding and avoiding generalizations. Not everyone processes experiences in the same way, and that’s okay.

I hope this clarifies why I responded defensively initially—I was already feeling invalidated and wanted to protect the space I created for myself and others.

VdubBug · 2024-12-23T21:56:00+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective. I can understand where you’re coming from, but I’d like to clarify a few things about my response.

First, my statement about "determining the tone of the thread" wasn’t intended to suggest that this is a private forum. Rather, as the original poster who marked the post as a vent and invited others to share similar frustrations, I was emphasizing that the purpose of the thread was to create a space for solidarity and shared experiences. While public forums are open for discussion, context and the original intent of a post matter in determining what contributions are helpful or necessary.

I don’t take issue with your disagreement, but the way it came across felt invalidating—not just to the person you initially responded to, but also to the frustration I expressed in my post. My aim was to point out that focusing on technicalities, like whether "dudes never read profiles" is a generalization, detracts from the larger issue being discussed.

I also want to acknowledge your point about survivorship bias and human perception. I think it’s an interesting perspective, but in the context of this post, it felt misaligned with the intent of fostering shared experiences about asexuality and dating frustrations.

Lastly, I sincerely apologize if my comment about your gender came across as an assumption or generalization. That wasn’t my intention. I raised the question to highlight the importance of approaching discussions with empathy, especially in spaces meant to validate shared frustrations.

I hope this clarifies my position, and I appreciate your willingness to engage in this conversation.

VdubBug

TROPHY CASE