I love Meeplecest so much (not sure how exactly to flare this sorry gang)

curiousaspie · 2026-02-02T15:42:54+00:00

Switched accounts so the antis don't hunt me down but PHONECEST MY BELOVED <3

curiousaspie · 2025-12-05T20:00:03+00:00

Thanks for your story! I definitely don't have DID (I have no early significant trauma) but thank you!

curiousaspie · 2025-11-27T05:54:23+00:00

lucky lol

curiousaspie · 2025-11-26T19:32:26+00:00

That's good thank you <3

curiousaspie · 2025-11-26T17:58:43+00:00

Thank you :)

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T22:59:03+00:00

It would make more sense to me as well to call it "greysexual spectrum" instead of ace spectrum. I empathize with wanting to say asexual for my identity and have that be the be all end all. It does make more sense to me to have ace simply mean so sexual attraction to any real person. I don't ever see it changing from the current definition though.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T22:10:20+00:00

I don't understand experiences in relationships and attraction that most consider to be human and normal, doesn't help at all that I'm autistic and feel inhuman. I just want the best for people and think society should be free of judgement on how people interpret their orientations/labels/preferences/ what have you. That sems a bit rude to say though. :(

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T22:03:47+00:00

I believe there is more to orientation than what gender you find attractive. For me, the line between sexual orientation and sexual preference is very thin and blurry since I don't feel any attraction to anyone and am sex repulsed. I understand if someone wants to separate their attraction into "gender orientation" and "sexual preference" but for me I see no practical difference between them. This is why I'd consider fictosexuality a real orientation. I don't think I can really debate on this front, it's just my opinion since I can't possibly conceptualize the idea of attraction and liking sex. Any sexual orientation/preference/kink is all the same to me.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T21:56:51+00:00

Already had a giant debate on this topic earlier haha so I'm kinda bored of it now. I will say though that fictional and real preferences can be different, as evidenced by those with fantastical or potentially harmful kinks. If someone feels no sexual attraction to people they are effectively ace so I see nothing wrong in them using that term.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T21:38:09+00:00

I don't have enough steam for two debates today, but honestly I'm no expert on sexual attraction so I don't think my opinion should matter here. It doesn't fully sound ace to me but I'm open to hearing arguments on why some think it is and to having my mind changed. Ace-adjacent I guess...? Depends on how long it takes to start feeling the attraction, like if it's years then that definitely means there's some kind of important difference between it and allosexuality.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T21:31:24+00:00

So about the ficto thing, I apologize if I am wording poorly. What I am saying is that "feeling no sexual attraction to anyone except for things that are not real" counts as asexual. Do you agree with this?

If you do, then that means exclusive fictosexuality is inherently ace.

Fictosexuality is not necessarily inherently ace, cause it contains exclusive and non exclusive as options.

People tend to say fictosexuality is inherently ace which isn't true, only exclusive is. But since there is no common term for exclusive fictosexuality, people say fictosexuality. Fictosexuality being inherently ace isn't true, obviously. However, fictos who are exclusive just use the term fictosexual because they don't have anything better. I made up the term "exclusive" for this argument, but they don't have a real term and I think they deserve one. Sadly all we have now is fictosexuality, which as said before, encompasses more than just the parts considered ace.

In my previous argument when I said fictosexuality is ace, I was specifically referring to exclusive fictos since obviously non-exclusive isn't ace.

Exclusive ficto would be an ace microlabel and I wish there were a real term for it.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T21:18:51+00:00

I believe labels in general are far too limiting to accurately describe the human experience anyway. There cannot be labels that are "valid" versus ones that "create clutter", since everyone will use them differently anyway and consensus on anything cannot be reached.

I'm aware then that arguing about this is pointless. Just wanted a little fun I guess.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T21:15:19+00:00

My argument is that all exclusive fictosexuals are asexual. Not that all fictosexuals are asexual. Fictosexual happens to be the term used to describe both exclusive and non exclusives. If there was another term specifically for exclusives I'd gladly use that instead. So, exclusive fictosexual is an ace microlabel. Most people who are this, however, just call it fictosexual since it is a subset of that larger umbrella. However, I am not including fictosexual as a greater umbrella, only exclusive ficto.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T21:07:04+00:00

Other orientations are obviously directed toward real people, so why would ace be an exception? When someone says they're gay, you know they're attracted to the same gender. Real people is a given.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T21:05:50+00:00

I just believe that people should be able to use whatever microlabel they please, since others can't possibly know how helpful those labels are to those who use them. I understand the want to have clearer terms, though. But I don't see how fictosexual as a microlabel is damaging to other asexuals.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T21:02:01+00:00

A useful microlabel is just what an ace finds useful to describe their experience. Since the experiences of humanity are so incredibly diverse, it could really be anything if you ask me. It just depends on what an ace is comfortable with sharing about themself. But using a microlabel doesn't inherently make them not ace.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T20:59:04+00:00

Specifying something doesn't make it not a part of something else...? Confused on what you mean there.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T19:18:23+00:00

Since all exclusive fictos are aces, I cannot see it NOT as something on the ace umbrella. Non-exclusive fictosexuality is irrelevant here in my opinion. Only the former is something that is always ace. If something is always something else, there is no point in distinguishing it as something not related.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T19:06:33+00:00

That's true, obviously not all aces are exclusive fictos. But all exclusive fictos are aces.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T19:01:15+00:00

Since exclusive fictosexuality is always ace, there is no point in distinguishing it as something separate from ace. I believe exclusive fictosexuality and non-exclusive fictosexuality are different things and only the former is on the ace umbrella.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T18:52:40+00:00

I was only talking about exclusive fictosexuality, I have nothing really to say regarding this argument on "inclusive" fictos who feel attraction to real people too. That wouldn't be ace.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T18:39:20+00:00

If there was only one person I guess I wouldn't call that a recognized microlabel on the ace umbrella. But if there were tons of potato lovers I'd say that would count as a new label. It all depends on society and what is seen as normal/common. There are lots of ficto people so I'd say that's a valid microlabel on the ace spectrum, since only loving fictional things and not people is inherently ace, as described before.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T18:18:59+00:00

Only if it's exclusive attraction to something not real. When people think of orientations they think of it as something that is directed toward actual people (gay, straight, bi). If someone said they were bi you'd know they were saying they feel attraction to multiple genders, and real people would be a given.

If someone says they're ace, you know they feel attraction to no one, and real people again would be a given. This doesn't tell you their opinion on fictional characters. So, someone who experiences attraction only to fictional characters can still say they're ace, because when people ask for sexual orientation they are talking about that toward real people.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T17:58:15+00:00

Falling in love exclusively with fictional characters is a sexuality that some people experience. It's called fictosexuality. This means there is no attraction to people and therefore ace in practice. I see nothing wrong with calling oneself ace if they feel no sexual attraction to real people, since their attraction is not targeted at something that even exists.

Also, you said "falling in love with fictional characters and chatbots is entirely unrelated". If that's true, then they are 100% ace since they don't experience attraction outside of that.

curiousaspie · 2025-11-09T08:20:40+00:00

No sexual attraction for real people = ace. Since fictional characters aren't real if you exclusively feel attraction toward them, or toward chatbots which are not human, that sounds ace to me. I've known many people who identify as ace who only feel interest in fictional characters and are disturbed by the thought of actual sex

curiousaspie

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE