Adsolution wrote:Wtf?Jewish Candy wrote:< can't believe there are still people who believe the A in LGBTQIA+ stands for 'Ally' and not 'Asexual'.< thinks that this is a fantastic article that highlights quite an observant stance towards terminology. Regarding this portion:MrBadGuy wrote:http://www.wired.com/2015/02/demisexuality/If the taxonomy seems loose and even confusing, it’s because the terms were created almost wholly online, arising on gaming-site forums and a nest of interrelated Tumblrs, blogs, and subreddits. They don’t necessarily describe fixed identities but serve more as beacons for people to locate each other online. While the rest of the world was using the web to invent and gratify new pervy thrills, these people used it as a wormhole out of a relentlessly sexual culture. It might be the only corner of the Internet that is not laced with porn.
So although labels are a big part of it, demisexuals and gray-aces don’t get too caught up in the lingo. They tend to be pretty comfortable with the idea they might change. A few months after that Friday at the outreach center, Genevieve realized she is more of an asexual than a gray-ace, and Sean now isn’t sure if he’s demi or ace. “Every single asexual I’ve met embraces fluidity—I might be gray or asexual or demisexual,” says Claudia, a 24-year-old student from Las Vegas. “Us aces are like: whatevs.”
In <'s opinion, the terminology, when it comes down to things, is largely unhelpful. It can be quite the opposite in some cases, as the concept of terminology, regardless of what can be said, is to provide designation. In the short-term, it can give people a sense of identity, it's a catchphrase that allows similar people to flock together. In the mid-term, it can make you unconsciously feel the need to conform to that designation. Two people are likely to label themselves as the same thing when the underlying causes are very different, which in the long-term, can create an even greater loss of identity, because their issues aren't being dealt with the right way. < thinks this is especially the case with younger people who only have online communities to interact with. Of course, there's very little scientific backing behind any of this, which is why < sees it as potentially harmful; science is the key, misnomers are not. One very good thing that can come out of this though is, due to the rising popularity of these terms, scientific research on it is probably going to increase a shitload.< doesn't intend to offend, but the ratio of people who think they're asexual when 15/16/17 to the amount of people who truly are asexual is like looking at a pie chart of how long humans have existed in the Universe. < also thought < was asexual a few years ago, as did emshomar apparently. A friend of mine who thought she was asexual recently told < that she finally discovered who she was, and that it ended up just being an odd sort of kink. A lack of sexuality is incredibly rare and, to < at least, isn't something to toss around lightly as something to claim you have, because it leaves the few in the world who are genuine lost among a crowd of 'fakers', and that situation is a horribly depressing one to be in.Sny wrote:< is asexual and actually very happy about that
Ironically, this is where fuzzy terminology sounds like it could come in handy, but that's a cheap solution in <'s view. < thinks it's best to analyse who you are as a person and describe yourself in that way.
< made up a funny comparison to atheism, something much more common (as it's actually our default state of being, quite the opposite of sexuality, which in addition is something you can't change or be influenced to "believe in"), being born asexual is like being born religious, it would require an oddly specific wiring in your brain and is downright obscure, nigh impossible. It isn't the perfect comparison though, as taking away one thing in particular (sexuality) from a set number of possibilities (your DNA) is much more predictable than forming one out of a virtually infinite amount of possibilities, but you catch my drift.
< also isn't discrediting the possibility of ^ actually being asexual, but <, suffice to say, isn't fully convinced. There's nothing anyone can really do about that though except wait and see if ^'s mindset persists throughout adulthood.
-- When < uses the word "you" in this thread, it isn't referring to anyone in specific, otherwise < would use "^"
So there are 2 rules
- 1. must be played in you game form, by sample: < is eating a cookie
- 2. All replies must be extremely long (like above)