20
September 2011

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

woooooooooooooooord

Absolutely yes, I do

(Source: lovelyliesinyoureyes, via the-original-dtwps)

19
September 2011
108         triforceof-power
sang you need to see this…

sang you need to see this…

(Source: triforceof-power, via reglub)

19
September 2011
3905        

(Source: , via personsuit)

19
September 2011
351         siins
siins:

quietly… draws some .. discord………..

Ooooohohhhh.

siins:

quietly… draws some .. discord………..

Ooooohohhhh.

(via personsuit)

18
September 2011

(via reglub)

18
September 2011
dumbthingswhitepplsay:

lotus-eyes:

youngbrownincompetence:

seitanistxvx:

leraje:

jewbilant:

you see this?
it’s called a razor
if you’re a girl, USE IT
your hairy legs and armpits aren’t cute okay
you’re not helping out for woman’s rights or anything
YOU’RE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK NASTY

OBEY THE CODES OF FEMININITY. OBEY THEM. YOU MUST LOOK CUTE AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE WOMYN HAVE TO BE ATTRACTIVE AT ALL TIMES. YOU MUST BE WHAT I BELIEVE IS BEAUTIFUL. OBEY. 


Fuck razors, I’m beautiful~

fuck you my pits and i are cute as


come at me bro


oh myyy

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

lotus-eyes:

youngbrownincompetence:

seitanistxvx:

leraje:

jewbilant:

you see this?

it’s called a razor

if you’re a girl, USE IT

your hairy legs and armpits aren’t cute okay

you’re not helping out for woman’s rights or anything

YOU’RE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK NASTY

OBEY THE CODES OF FEMININITY. OBEY THEM. YOU MUST LOOK CUTE AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE WOMYN HAVE TO BE ATTRACTIVE AT ALL TIMES. YOU MUST BE WHAT I BELIEVE IS BEAUTIFUL. OBEY. 

Fuck razors, I’m beautiful~

fuck you my pits and i are cute as

come at me bro

oh myyy

(via the-original-dtwps)

18
September 2011
34         sailorusagidesu

hernameishelen:

dynamitepacifist:

dynamitepacifist:

I Would Like A Bath Tub, Sir, A Bath Tub Of Tea!: Wait wait. There is a problem with “non-asexual” as a replacement for “sexual”.

hernameishelen:

Disclaimer: Every use of the word “sexual” here within means “a person who experiences sexual attraction in some…

1. Actually, I have been without sexual attraction before. That is not true. If you wanted to label me based on your standards, you’d say demisexual. I think demisexual is an offensive term, as pointed out in my reply to greenchestnuts. I am physically disabled on top of it, so even if I do feel sexual attraction, it is usually more often than not, simply delegated to romantic. I also have body dysphoria and do not often enjoy being physically stimulated in the event that I even can be. I understand the shitstorm that is sexuality and how confusing it can be.

So to throw it on the table, you’re completely wrong by saying I don’t understand. I was not trying to say that you don’t need a word for asexual.

2. I don’t think you need a word to umbrella term those who are sexually attracted to others. That is what I am here talking about. I tend to tangent when off on a rant to try and make a point, though my statement about my identity was to be used as an example.

What I do not get is your desire for an umbrella term. “Sexual” on its own was already explained as being offensive.

Demisexuals don’t have to have sex to still have sexual attraction: just like anyone else. If they have sexual attraction, they are not asexual.

3. Asexuals sometimes have sex. Demisexuals don’t always have sex. Newsflash: Everyone else doesn’t always have sex either but identifying with having sexual attraction would make someone “non-asexual”. You said it yourself. Behavior does not denote sexuality. When you say someone is a “sexual” you are talking about the fact that they have an active desire for sex. Yet again, slut-shaming ensues and criticism occurs.

1. Yes, if I was given the basics of your attraction without a person behind them, I would understand them to be demisexual. That you identify as pansexual is the difference. I will not label you demisexual because you say you are demisexual. Therefore. You’re not demisexual. *shrugs*

2. My whole argument was talking about needing a word to describe people who experience sexual attraction without being on the ace spectrum. Yes we do. It’s difficult to talk about asexuality without the rest of the sexual and asexual spectrums at our disposal to discuss. It’s also guaranteed to leave holes in the areas we’re “not allowed” to discuss. I wasn’t talking about needing a word for asexual. If you tried to tell me I couldn’t use “asexual” I would label you a tyrant idiot and not even be having this conversation. But that isn’t what you’re saying, which is why I am talking to you. We need a word to describe people other than ourselves.

3. See, I know that behaviour doesn’t say shit all about attraction. When I say someone is a sexual, that means they experience sexual attraction without being on the ace spectrum. You are the ones who are making it into a slut-shaming word. I mean it in a very specific, very singular definition. I’m not pulling double standards. When I tell someone to stop conflating asexuality with celibacy, I wouldn’t turn around and be like LOL THEM SEXUALS BEING SO SEXY AND SLUTTY AND LOL. Cuz they’re not. They’re regular god damned people. They’re 99% something of the world’s population. It’d be pretty ridic if I went and said they were slutty. I mean, really. That is the epitome of ridic. Having an active desire for sex, and sexual attraction - not the same thing.

And re: demisexuality not being asexual - no shit. They’re on the ace spectrum. The spectrum of attraction that goes from asexual to sexual, with the capacity for primary and secondary sexual attraction being the measure. You know a gray-scale? That’s why we call them gray-asexuals. Demisexuals are part of the gray-asexuals. They’re in between.

As for sexual being offensive, I still do not get why a word for people who experience both primary and secondary sexual attraction is offensive.

Except you are wrong about something. There is no such thing as primary and secondary sexual attraction. I understand what you meant when you defined the terms, but unfortunately your definitions are yet again flawed to the point that I would say ableist. I’m going to attempt to explain why concisely, though I may have to ask we switch to communicating between asks simply because the reply function is really starting to screw with my head. I’m fairly new to actually having discussions on tumblr, and I’m visually impaired enough that I am having a great bit of difficulty figuring out what replies are going where.


WRT TO PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SEXUAL ATTRACTION: There is no such division to truly be made. There are a lot of mostly face-less relationships started on the internet that cannot be disregarded as love. When those people meet, they screw irregardless of physically having been introduced before. There was still sexual tension there via words, and it did not have to be bodily in origin. Emotions play strong role in sexual attraction, just as much as physical biology and hormones do. If someone has a chemical imbalance but may emotionally love someone, they still may be physically attracted to them. There is an interconnection between these two that it would flat out be immature to divide. Sexual attraction is not a one or the other deal, and that goes for everyone that experiences sexual attraction.

You did say that you do not experience sexual attraction, and it is nigh on impossible for me to describe how it functions to people but there is definitely an interconnection. I am visually impaired but I am sexually attracted to my wife, whom I cannot always have sex with. She is beautiful, and I love her, and I will feel that way whether or not I can actually see her (I am going completely blind) or not. To make that division implies that those with chemical imbalances, sexual dysfunction, and physical impairments are abnormal. People sexually feel attracted to others in different ways, which is one reason that attraction and love have no definite meaning. It is an abstract concept which is utilized in different ways for different people and yet aims in one solitary direction. Love and sex are connected, but not entirely. Physical attraction and emotional are interconnected, though their may be a definitive sway between the two, they are almost always together. If either sexual attraction occur, then it is still an expression of human sexuality and therefore it is sexual in nature.

TL;DR You can’t divide the two.

WRT TO DEMISEXUALITY: If you agree that it is in a spectrum of asexual individuals ranging to those who are sexually attracted to others, then you agree that demisexuals are by very nature sexually attracted to others. They fit under the “sexuals” label. You can simply say “those who are not on the ace spectrum” if you don’t wish to exclude demisexuals in an argument you are making. There doesn’t need to be a word for those who are on the spectrum and those who are not, especially if you have the phrase the “ace spectrum”.

WRT TO SEXUAL: It is offensive when it is being used as a noun. You are defining someone solely based on the fact that they like sex. Another instance of defining someone solely based on the fact that they like sex is referring to someone as a slut.

I am aware of how you are using sexual, but intent isn’t magical. You (general) don’t have to intend to insult someone to insult them. TW SEXUAL ASSAULT MENTIONED AFTER THIS POINT: My ex attempted to sexually assault me because I was not sexually accessible to him. I was not willing, but he assumed that I since I was in a relationship with him, that naturally that meant that I should therefore being sexually intimate with him. The same kind of implication is made by referring to me as a “sexual”. I do experience sexual attraction therefore I am sexually available, that is the impression “sexual” gives off to many people and why it should be avoided.

I am not defined by whether or not I have a desire to have sexual intercourse. Asexuals are the ones who have identified themselves in such a manner, and I agree that asexuals should be respected and given the rights to choose their own identity. When I don’t want to be called sexual, consider it how you don’t want to be called celibate. The implications of the two words are different.

We do not, generally, want to be referred to as Sexuals. We are different groups, of different sexualities than your own, who desire to not be categorized under one label that is being used by some of the ace community as an insult.


(via sailorusagidesu)

18
September 2011
34         sailorusagidesu

dynamitepacifist:

I Would Like A Bath Tub, Sir, A Bath Tub Of Tea!: Wait wait. There is a problem with “non-asexual” as a replacement for “sexual”.

hernameishelen:

Disclaimer: Every use of the word “sexual” here within means “a person who experiences sexual attraction in some…

1. Actually, I have been without sexual attraction before. That is not true. If you wanted to label me based on your standards, you’d say demisexual. I think demisexual is an offensive term, as pointed out in my reply to greenchestnuts. I am physically disabled on top of it, so even if I do feel sexual attraction, it is usually more often than not, simply delegated to romantic. I also have body dysphoria and do not often enjoy being physically stimulated in the event that I even can be. I understand the shitstorm that is sexuality and how confusing it can be.

So to throw it on the table, you’re completely wrong by saying I don’t understand. I was not trying to say that you don’t need a word for asexual.

2. I don’t think you need a word to umbrella term those who are sexually attracted to others. That is what I am here talking about. I tend to tangent when off on a rant to try and make a point, though my statement about my identity was to be used as an example.

What I do not get is your desire for an umbrella term. “Sexual” on its own was already explained as being offensive.

Demisexuals don’t have to have sex to still have sexual attraction: just like anyone else. If they have sexual attraction, they are not asexual.

3. Asexuals sometimes have sex. Demisexuals don’t always have sex. Newsflash: Everyone else doesn’t always have sex either but identifying with having sexual attraction would make someone “non-asexual”. You said it yourself. Behavior does not denote sexuality. When you say someone is a “sexual” you are talking about the fact that they have an active desire for sex. Yet again, slut-shaming ensues and criticism occurs.

(via sailorusagidesu)

18
September 2011
34         sailorusagidesu

greenchestnuts:

dynamitepacifist:

hernameishelen:

Disclaimer: Every use of the word “sexual” here within means “a person who experiences sexual attraction in some capacity, and does not identify as gray-a”.

I’m not saying we should go back to sexual.

However, non-asexual is a grouping that includes graces and demisexuals, which is presumably…

I’m kind of confused about what is so wrong with listing demisexuals (who do have sexual attraction) as sexuals. I’m also confused as to why they are listed as being members of the asexual spectrum.

I don’t experience sexual attraction unless I am emotionally connected to someone. To most people, that is referred to as pansexual. I don’t know if you are aware of the  criticisms of demisexuality, but most people fit under the demisexual label as it currently is. And I don’t want to hear any arguments about how I don’t understand being ~inbetween~ on sexualities. I’m gender fluid and homosexual. This seemed one of the most counterintuiative things ever because if I flip genders, how can I identify as being a gay?

I understand that labels are hard. Sexuality is a big ball of confusing, but demisexuals identify as not being asexual. Asexuals can have sex, and some do, but they don’t have the sexual attraction. Demisexuals do have sexual attraction, despite circumstances, and they have sex.

So therefore they would be “sexual” if you wanted to use that term.

Though honestly, I don’t see what this trend of making up a word for everything is coming from. Just say that there is a difference between those who do and do not experience sexual attraction. You don’t need a word. We know that those who don’t experience sexual attraction are asexual. We also know that those who do experience sexual attraction are the other category.

You don’t need a word for it, jfc.

As I understand it, people started to identify as demisexual because they didn’t feel like identifying as asexual or “sexual” was appropriate. I don’t think it’s right to try to eliminate an identity a) in general, and especially b) that grew out of people’s inability to describe themselves with existing words. The label of demisexual came about because of people who didn’t feel like they belonged in the “sexual” community. (Using “sexual” until we find a better term.)

Are you familiar with the criticisms of demisexuality then?

Demisexuals say they don’t have sexual attraction unless there is an emotional connection first. They are defining themselves as the current, culturally ideal relationship. After all, people who aren’t in love that are getting laid are sluts based on societies standards. Demisexuality is just a word to define an ideal. It is slut-shaming in its inherent definition, so I don’t see a problem getting rid of the term.

People use demisexuality as a “Well I’m like those other people just because I can be normal, and have sex, but I’m not a slut about it. I only have sex with people I care about.” It has a holier than thou attitude attached. It’s not okay.

But if demisexuals want to have their label, say they have attraction, but refuse to be labeled as people having sexual attraction. You can’t have both.

(Source: sailorusagidesu)

18
September 2011
34         sailorusagidesu

hernameishelen:

Disclaimer: Every use of the word “sexual” here within means “a person who experiences sexual attraction in some capacity, and does not identify as gray-a”.

I’m not saying we should go back to sexual.

However, non-asexual is a grouping that includes graces and demisexuals, which is presumably…

I’m kind of confused about what is so wrong with listing demisexuals (who do have sexual attraction) as sexuals. I’m also confused as to why they are listed as being members of the asexual spectrum.

I don’t experience sexual attraction unless I am emotionally connected to someone. To most people, that is referred to as pansexual. I don’t know if you are aware of the  criticisms of demisexuality, but most people fit under the demisexual label as it currently is. And I don’t want to hear any arguments about how I don’t understand being ~inbetween~ on sexualities. I’m gender fluid and homosexual. This seemed one of the most counterintuiative things ever because if I flip genders, how can I identify as being a gay?

I understand that labels are hard. Sexuality is a big ball of confusing, but demisexuals identify as not being asexual. Asexuals can have sex, and some do, but they don’t have the sexual attraction. Demisexuals do have sexual attraction, despite circumstances, and they have sex.

So therefore they would be “sexual” if you wanted to use that term.

Though honestly, I don’t see what this trend of making up a word for everything is coming from. Just say that there is a difference between those who do and do not experience sexual attraction. You don’t need a word. We know that those who don’t experience sexual attraction are asexual. We also know that those who do experience sexual attraction are the other category.

You don’t need a word for it, jfc.

 1   2   3  >