Opinion What do you think of asexuality and aromantics?

[Scattered Ambitions]

Just now, punkinblackk said:



@Scattered Ambitions I'm referring to the millennial generation. (1990-2002 ish. I'd have to check it to be sure. I'm not hugely proud of the reputation my generation tends to have.) So I'm not entirely sure what sense your referring to centennials in. 




 

Centennial is the generation after millennial.

 

[punkinblackk]

@Scattered Ambitions alright. The last I'd heard the official name for them was still up in the air. Either way, all things considered, they are just entering their teens and still have yet to make a full impression on me, but I hope they manage to do better than the millennials as a whole have done so far. 

 

[Scattered Ambitions]

1 minute ago, punkinblackk said:



@Scattered Ambitions alright. The last I'd heard the official name for them was still up in the air. Either way, all things considered, they are just entering their teens and still have yet to make a full impression on me, but I hope they manage to do better than the millennials as a whole have done so far. 




 

Don't set your hopes too high. Unfortunately, most of the people I know are centennials, as I am one, and we all suck.  

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

You mean, because none of this crap had been invented yet. 

 We simply didn't always have terms to explain things. Back in the 60's, homosexuality was conflated with pedophilia. They're now known to not be the same, albeit the latter we know hardly anything about.


As for asexuality, I agree to the notion it exists and would logically be a real anomaly in some people. If you looked at a square and marked the left as heterosexuality and the right being homosexuality, the top would be bisexuality, the attraction to both, while asexuality is the rare case where you're just not attracted to either. I don't see what could be difficult about understanding that. But I also don't see a reason to think it's not real just because the *cough* SJW's *cough* ruin any possibility of new terms.

 

[punkinblackk]

@Scattered Ambitions didn't realize you were one. Ah well. By the next generation we'll have either destroyed everything, or brought society through the disaster that is the "never failed, do no wrong, no effort required" millennial mindset.

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

View attachment 237221


View attachment 237220


View attachment 237222


Here, have some internet things that explain asexuality, and a couple other less known sexualities in a simple easy to understand way. 

 I'll vouch asexual is real, but I'd stray from Tumblr, the cancer ideologue.


I would also argue "gray/grey-asexual" or demi-sexual is not real, imo. You're either sexual or you're not. If you are sexual with someone you form a deep relationship, emotionally, with, then you're sexual. There's just no need to argue, imo. It makes no sense.


Grey ace is sexual, and the idea of labeling it next to asexuality because it's infrequent is just a disservice to asexuals.

 

[punkinblackk]

@Colleen McJavabean there is as much cancerous opinion on tumblr as anywhere else. You just have to know what's decent and what's not. 


Gray sexual is a bit off for me, but the rest of the image contained useful information. 


Demi sexual, which I fall under slightly, is the fact you are not sexually attracted to people unless you have a connection or bond with them. You don't just look at someone and decide "hey that person is hot. I'd like to have sex with them." It's more of talking to someone for a few days/weeks/whatever and then looking at them one day and realizing, "I like this person in a sexual/romantic way" and proceeding with pursuing a deeper relationship afterwards. 

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

@punkinblackk I would greatly disagree with that. It's one of the few epicenters of the web - counting Buzzfeed - that isn't in the dark web.


Sure, I guess, but it still is just nonsensical and a determent to asexuality. To say you're sometimes asexual and sometimes not, but label yourself under an umbrella of asexuality is like saying "I'm gay, but sometimes I'm attracted to the opposite sex... but I'm still gay." No, you'd be bisexual.


Yep, and I'm still going to say that "demisexual" is still a sexual thing. It's not asexual. You're either asexual or you're sexual. If you're sexual, you're capable of being sexually attracted to either male or female or both. Asexuals are not attracted or do not feel sexual attraction to either. If it takes talking to someone and getting to know them, I say you're still sexual.

 

[punkinblackk]

@Colleen McJavabean


There's nothing saying that demisexuals aren't sexual, they just don't experience typical sexual attraction. 


I'm not saying there is much if any similarities between Demi sexual, asexual and greysexual other than the untypical sexual attraction experience. 


As for the whole greysexual thing, my opinion is, if you find one person outside your typical sexuality preference (straight guy gets involved with gay guy, whatever) that does not immediately make you bisexual. Especially if, after that relationship, you never feel sexually or romantically attracted to another member of that gender. 

 

[yaint]

does it actually matter tho


can't we just all agree that we millennials are our own breed of stupid and get on with life whilst finding something to all mutually hate together

 

[Sunbather]

Okay, look, so asexuality is totally valid and nothing wrong with it at all, but the bottom half of that tumblr post is redundant AND stupid. If you're consensually sexual and enjoy it, you're not asexual. If you enjoy sex "but only with people who you have a strong bond with" then you're not asexual or whatever else people wanna classify that. You're just not promiscuous. If you enjoy sex but don't actively seek it out, you probably have a low sex-drive. That's all. That isn't a sexualty, that's just having a certain degree of sexuality.


The reason this is important, and why it is important to dismiss that crap being grouped with the rest, is because it completely delegitimizes actual asexuality (and I'd wager, by association other types of non-majority sexuality, as well as perhaps things commonly lumped in with sexuality, such as gender dysphoria.), and making it look like infantile mood inventions.

 

[call me rae]

Don't set your hopes too high. Unfortunately, most of the people I know are centennials, as I am one, and we all suck.  

I wouldn't be so hard on yourself or your fellows. Your still in your teens, everyone is their most sucky self as a teen. Thankfully you grow out of it. Which was my previous point. 


Give it it till your about in you mid to late twenties to make a real unbiased opinion.


i mean when I think of the train wreck I was as a teen and the person I am now ... Jesus it's like I became a different person.


Not just in personality but in thought processes and view points.


plus to be fair your generation is a lot more aware of the world than mine. The internet was still newish when I was a teen. I mean at least the internet as you probably understand it. Ah MySpace, how I don't miss thee.


but you live in a world where thousands of voices are screaming their opinions at you constantly. Most of them not amounting to a whole lot of sense either. Add that to you being at the point in your life when literally everyone is a trainwreck of a human being and yeah.


i don't envy you puberty and growing up in the tumblr generation. But people will grow out of it. Give them ten years and some new generation will come with another new way of looking at the world and we'll be moaning about them.

 

[Shireling]

 We simply didn't always have terms to explain things. Back in the 60's, homosexuality was conflated with pedophilia. They're now known to not be the same, albeit the latter we know hardly anything about.


As for asexuality, I agree to the notion it exists and would logically be a real anomaly in some people. If you looked at a square and marked the left as heterosexuality and the right being homosexuality, the top would be bisexuality, the attraction to both, while asexuality is the rare case where you're just not attracted to either. I don't see what could be difficult about understanding that. But I also don't see a reason to think it's not real just because the *cough* SJW's *cough* ruin any possibility of new terms.

I will say, however, most of this crap these days is either made up entirely or slapping the gay label on a pathology of some kind. 

plus to be fair your generation is a lot more aware of the world than mine. The internet was still newish when I was a teen. I mean at least the internet as you probably understand it. Ah MySpace, how I don't miss thee.

I would argue the younger generation is even less aware of the world as it really is because it's all filtered through a certain ideology. 

i don't envy you puberty and growing up in the tumblr generation. But people will grow out of it. Give them ten years and some new generation will come with another new way of looking at the world and we'll be moaning about them.

You know, this never used to be the case. We didn't really have distinct subcultures for teens until the 50's. I think it's a mark of civilizational decline. Every generation becomes more decadent than the last. 

 

[StoneWolf18]

I just wanna put this here...


There are people who, shove whatever they're defining themselves as down your throat even if you don't even know them for the sake of "being different."


And then there are people who would just feel comfortable knowing that people are aware of what they feel, yet in a less Tumblr-angsty teen-hipster kinda way.


This is from my experience at least, and it isn't just with sexualities or genders but a slew of other such... odd descriptions I didn't even know existed. If it takes fifteen seconds to literally list out who you're attracted to, what your gender is, and that you apparently aren't human... I think that's a bit more iffy than saying "I'm a biologically female asexual fuck." 


Im not saying people can't say they're -mile long list of words here (so I don't offend anyone more than I might've already have)- but I feel that for people to take you seriously EVEN IF you aren't with the rest of those "lost teens," simplify it up a bit so people don't get the wrong impression. 


And, by the lord almighty, we're all human. That's a subject I might make another thread for, but I just wanted to slip that in there.

 

[call me rae]

I will say, however, most of this crap these days is either made up entirely or slapping the gay label on a pathology of some kind. 


I would argue the younger generation is even less aware of the world as it really is because it's all filtered through a certain ideology. 


You know, this never used to be the case. We didn't really have distinct subcultures for teens until the 50's. I think it's a mark of civilizational decline. Every generation becomes more decadent than the last. 

Well that's your opinion of course. My point was more information overload and the lack of ability to get away from it. Plus I did say most of the screaming voices don't amount to anything sensible.


i tend to skew more optimistic but that's cuz I'm an optimistic person, i trained myself to view things in a positive light because overt negativity made my life suck and changed exactly nothing anyway.


( not saying your overtly negative just saying why I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt )

 

[Pine]

I would also argue "gray/grey-asexual" or demi-sexual is not real, imo.

If you enjoy sex "but only with people who you have a strong bond with" then you're not asexual or whatever else people wanna classify that. You're just not promiscuous.

I can't say anything for gray-asexuals, but being someone who [loosely] identifies with demi-sexual... 


I draw the distinction because I've only experienced what I think may have been sexual attraction once in my life, and it was in a very fleeting moment. For me, being demi-sexual does not mean that just like as soon as I'm close with someone, I automatically experience sexual attraction. I was in a relationship before then for ~four years, and not once did I experience anything akin to that. It's just so infrequent and I have no guarantee that it will happen again/when it will happen again. So in that sense, I've spent 99.9999repeating% of my life sharing the experiences that asexual people talk about. I feel like there are more fitting labels for me than non-asexual. By contrast, I see my share of non-asexuals experience sexual attraction quite frequently, regardless of their personal relationship with that person. (Just look at how people talk about kpop bands on this site lmao.)


 But I can also understand why people don't think it should be under the asexual umbrella (if you think of it as spectrum at all). I took a sexual behaviors class this past semester, so I know that one of the main patterns with relationships is that familiarity heightens attraction.

You know, this never used to be the case. We didn't really have distinct subcultures for teens until the 50's. I think it's a mark of civilizational decline. Every generation becomes more decadent than the last. 

I believe it isn't a decline so much as it is natural aging of language and culture. The conception of language calls for information to be categorized. That way things are easier to process and discuss, and we humans love our shortcuts. Without this, it would just be abstract thought. Previous categories have already been concretely established, so there isn't really any need to dwell on them any longer. Now with a more individualistic era, we're thinking in terms of something more personal, ala gender/sexuality. It's just us trying out new things and forming new language. What immediately comes to mind is the inception of ethnic groups/race, and I have yet to think of any way that this is different. If anything, I feel like some of these things have more utility than ethnicity labels do.

 

[Shireling]

Well that's your opinion of course. My point was more information overload and the lack of ability to get away from it. Plus I did say most of the screaming voices don't amount to anything sensible.


i tend to skew more optimistic but that's cuz I'm an optimistic person, i trained myself to view things in a positive life because overt negativity made my life suck and changed exactly nothing anyway.


( not saying your overtly negative just saying why I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt )

I prefer to think of myself as a hopeful pessimist. Modern Western society has given me no reason to think it won't devolve into people hooked up to a machine masturbating all day. But I hope I'm wrong. 

 

[StoneWolf18]

I will say, however, most of this crap these days is either made up entirely or slapping the gay label on a pathology of some kind.

I do agree with you on this.  There are a few thing such as being homosexual or bisexual that we know exist and are more widely recognized, and then there are descriptors you only find in the deep dark depths of Tumblr because some kid thought it would be fun to make one up. (I'm sure it exists people, considering the age we live in today.)

I would argue the younger generation is even less aware of the world as it really is because it's all filtered through a certain ideology. 

What would be said ideology? I'm genuinely curious.

I prefer to think of myself as a hopeful pessimist. Modern Western society has given me no reason to think it won't devolve into people hooked up to a machine masturbating all day. But I hope I'm wrong.

This made me chuckle and, in my opinion, is rather plausible. 

 

[Shireling]

I believe it isn't a decline so much as it is natural aging of language and culture. The conception of language calls for information to be categorized. That way things are easier to process and discuss, and we humans love our shortcuts. Without this, it would just be abstract thought. Previous categories have already been concretely established, so there isn't really any need to dwell on them any longer. Now with a more individualistic era, we're thinking in terms of something more personal, ala gender/sexuality. It's just us trying out new things and forming new language. What immediately comes to mind is the inception of ethnic groups/race, and I have yet to think of any way that this is different. If anything, I feel like some of these things have more utility than ethnicity labels do.

You think that gender ideology has as much utility as the ability to differentiate between ethnicities? Huh. I would argue we have always been able to differentiate between in and out group, which usually involves ethnicity. 


As for the language argumentation, it's true that humans invent slang but that's been true for every era in human history. I suspect even Latin teenagers were calling Carthaginians "Molos" or something because they worshipped Moloch. 


The modern gender/sexuality free for all is merely a product of an ideological free fall in society where any idea that spurns the natural or the tradition is accepted on its face. 

 

[Shireling]

What would be said ideology? I'm genuinely curious.

I think you know exactly what this ideology is. Cultural Marxism I guess would be the best way to describe it. And it thrives on the constant generation of in-group, out-group conflict where none may exist, so it often manufactures it. 

 

[StoneWolf18]

I think you know exactly what this ideology is. Cultural Marxism I guess would be the best way to describe it. And it thrives on the constant generation of in-group, out-group conflict where none may exist, so it often manufactures it. 

I do indeed yet wanted to hear you're take on it is all. ^^

 

[Pine]

You think that gender ideology has as much utility as the ability to differentiate between ethnicities? Huh. I would argue we have always been able to differentiate between in and out group, which usually involves ethnicity. 

I haven't thought too much on it, but at present, I think the use of ethnic groups has greatly declined. You could think of like some second-generation German American like one of the more obscure gender identities/sexual orientations. At the end of the day, you're probably white af and your German heritage was never a pure line anyway. I think the cognitive labeling of people based on race it definitely an old thing, but outside of preserving cultural traditions (which I may equate in value to being able to have words to express whichever identity you feel on an individual basis), I don't see the utility. Basing people on skin pigmentation would have been important back in the day of hunting/gathering because you could recognize an enemy tribe, but at least in the U.S. we've become more of a chopped salad and that distinction has devolved into stereotypes and needless discrimination imo.


So it isn't so much to say that I find them both super useful. I find that they both may conditionally have their merits, but for the most part mean nothing.

The modern gender/sexuality free for all is merely a product of an ideological free fall in society where any idea that spurns the natural or the tradition is accepted on its face. 

This may be true, I haven't ever really thought of it that way. At the very list, I think there is enough backlash from more tranditional/conservative-minded people to help filter through any nonsense we may have come up with over time. So while some people take everything for face value, I think there's about an equally large group of people that don't to help balance it out.

 

[Shireling]

I haven't thought too much on it, but at present, I think the use of ethnic groups has greatly declined. You could think of like some second-generation German American like one of the more obscure gender identities/sexual orientations. At the end of the day, you're probably white af and your German heritage was never a pure line anyway. I think the cognitive labeling of people based on race it definitely an old thing, but outside of preserving cultural traditions (which I may equate in value to being able to have words to express whichever identity you feel on an individual basis), I don't see the utility. Basing people on skin pigmentation would have been important back in the day of hunting/gathering because you could recognize an enemy tribe, but at least in the U.S. we've become more of a chopped salad and that distinction has devolved into stereotypes and needless discrimination imo.


So it isn't so much to say that I find them both super useful. I find that they both may conditionally have their merits, but for the most part mean nothing.


This may be true, I haven't ever really thought of it that way. At the very list, I think there is enough backlash from more tranditional/conservative-minded people to help filter through any nonsense we may have come up with over time. So while some people take everything for face value, I think there's about an equally large group of people that don't to help balance it out.

I don't think classifying people into in-groups and out-groups based on where they do or do not put their genitals is a very good idea. Ethnic and cultural identities, however, have a tried and true history and almost all of the relevant aspects of culture and values are encapsulated within it. Your distant German example should just be considered an American. American is definitely a cultural identity, in which there are several subgroups but they all share similar traits. A black gay man in Oregon will probably be doing the same thing your distant German white straight man will be doing on the Fourth of July: eating hamburgers and hotdogs and shooting off fireworks. On the other hand, if you use gender/sexuality, the only thing that ties these people together is what they do with their junk.


This is the importance of nation and having fellowship with your countrymen.

 

[Count Gensokyo]

But there are only two genders.

 

[Shireling]

But there are only two genders.

Of course this is true also.