PsychoSexual

Only not quite that kind of "psycho" and not quite that kind of "Sexual"

Posts tagged romance

396 notes

hadrianic:

cool aro/ace-friendly thing you can do (or just, friendly to people with diverging romantic/sexual orientations):

list your sexual orientation and romantic orientation together if you are comfortable sharing those things, even or especially if they align

stop assuming that if someone is (x)sexual they must automatically be (x)romantic and vice versa 

(Source: socraticprettyboy, via aromanticaardvark)

Filed under sexuality romance LGBTQA

27 notes

Anonymous asked: but pretty much non asexual people need to form a close bond before they can have romantic attraction? i'm so confused about demiromantic sorry. this day and age we've squashed the concept of "love at first sight".

asexualadvice:

Yeah, no, we haven’t. We live in a society that puts more emphasis on sexual attraction at first sight, but romantic attraction definitely is still a driving factor. Crushes? Romantic attraction, often without a close bond, sometimes without any kind of a bond whatsoever. 

Also, all you need to do is go watch a few romcoms to see that society is head over heels in love with the idea of love at first sight. Hell, it’s in all the media everywhere. Peeta Mellark - loved Katniss for years before he’d ever talked to her. Angel (on Buffy the Vampire Slayer) - says something about loving her because he could see her heart, then spends a season being weird before owning up to his crush on her. Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann - I can’t remember the wording, but they crushed on each other since they were 10 and societal standards kept them from having even a friendship. Anakin Skywalker. Most Shakespearean couples. Don’t give me that kind of crap - romantic attraction at first sight is definitely a thing.

And as a demiromantic, I really don’t appreciate you trying to downplay and erase my identity. I am a very extreme case of demiromanticism, so using myself as an example should be dramatic enough for you. All of the people I’ve met and befriended over the years have been nothing but platonic, except for one person. My best friend of now 13 years is the person I am closest to in the world. I trust her with everything, she knows everything about me, our bond is unshakeable. She is the only person I have ever been romantically attracted to - I need that strong of a bond to even start to feel romantic attraction. I am demiromantic. Getting to know someone a bit and then developing a crush? Doesn’t cut it. That’s just alloromanticism. You’ve got to have that close bond element. 

-Kiowa

I feel like using all fictional cases of romantic attraction at first sight doesn’t really help prove it actually happens, but yeah exactly.

And from the other side of the coin, I’m the exact opposite of a demiromantic - every single one of my crushes happened at (or practically just after) first sight. No bonding at all for it happen, let alone a close bond. In fact, if it wasn’t for this one current case, I would think the possibility of  bonding with a crush was completely impossible for me since I always felt so detached from them despite the infatuation. 

It’s kind of funny, there are probably a ton of would-be considered demiromantics out there but wouldn’t think of themselves as such just because they think “love” at first sight & similar concepts are bullshit, that it only exists in fiction. Even if demiromantics are much more common than those who identify as that, it doesn’t mean that identity or concept itself is unnecessary. 

"Love" at first sight does sound pretty absurd - especially with how romance is so…romanticized - & it may not even happen often enough to be the "norm", but it definitely does happen to people. 

ALSO, I highly doubt all non-ace people require bonding before romantic attraction can happen. There’s a hell of a lot of different kinds of chemistry out there. 

Filed under romance attraction

0 notes

new blog idea

I noticed theres no blogs dedicated to mixed orientations at all, which I think is a problem. The only time you see anyone talking about romantic/sexual orientations not matching is on asexual (“who can be of any romantic orientation”) or aromantic (“who can be of any sexual orientation”) blogs, which still excludes a lot of people who may feel torn, questioning or confused about their feelings. 

So I really want to help run a blog that focuses on:

  • Education/visibility of the concept & various identities of sexual orientations & romantic orientations
  • They don’t always totally line up, they may not even line up at all
  • How this can impact intimate relationships & what tactics/ideas may possibly help for all partners involved or what other type of relationship options you may be willing to try 
  • Debunking stereotypes & misconceptions of various identities
  • Also I think it should have a 101 resource page where it breaks down the differences between different orientations, gender, physical sex, relationship types, etc

Anyone want to help me on this? Obviously I think it would be best if it was run by people with mixed orientations, but otherwise I think it’s important that moderators (right term?) have diverse experiences & identities. 

 For reference I’m a hetero(grey)romantic asexual cis woman (and single, white, able-bodied, neuro-atypical in her early 20s). This is something I (or anyone probably) definitely can’t/shouldn’t do alone. 

P.S. - I’m thinking about calling it “ mixed-not-matched “…..really as long as it’s something that indicates non matching sexual/romantic orientations I think it should be ok

Filed under sexuality romance lgbtqia gender romantic orientation relationship

2 notes

teawithturtle:

I love how people so often seem to forget that romantic attraction =/= sexual attraction. Those two are different.

A person can be homosexual but biromantic, for example.

This is important.

This matters.

Please don’t ignore romantic attraction.

There really needs to be a blog dedicated to this. I’m so disappointed there doesn’t seem to be one already :(

Filed under lgbtqia lgbtqa lgbt rights sexuality romance

114,252 notes

shinyoffbeatsquirrel:

arscharis:

College Final Major Project

These are posters I created for my final major project at the end of my 2-year Level 3 BTEC Extended Diploma in Graphic Design.

I decided to create an information pack for schools and colleges providing resources for them to share with students about LGBT+ issues.

Created in Illustrator.

You are welcome to print these for your own personal use or to put up in LGBT+ safe spaces/societies/clubs/etc.

"Inside Out" is a fictional campaign.

While these are wonderful, I’m kind of upset that you forgot about bisexuals… :(

I guess because bisexuality is relatively more known & understood so they decided to skip it. Then again I’ve heard/read some really ridiculous things about people’s impression on bisexuality, so a poster on that probably wouldn’t be a bad idea…

(Source: char-design-blog)

Filed under sexuality identity romance

512 notes

This distinction made in the asexual community between sexual and romantic attraction just blew my mind when I heard about it. It’s a conceptually rich language that could be very valuable to even people who are not asexual.

Mark Carrigan, Asexuality: The ‘X’ In A Sexual World

I love this quote so much because I’ve said the SAME thing to my friends when talking about asexuality. So many times in our culture we couple romance and sex and they just AREN’T the same thing. They aren’t the same feeling. And, I’ll use TV as an example, too many times in our media shows will write in “romantic” plots and most of it is about sex and we are expected to enjoy this—expected to support this. But it feels so unreal and contrived because this kind of portrayal weighs heavily on the sexual aspect of a relationship, and we as the audience on some level understand that this isn’t right. That a truly romantic relationship/connection isn’t necessarily about sex or sexual desire. 

The reality is that romance and sex are different. They may support each other, but they are fundamentally different. Having a distinction, thanks to the asexual community, i think allows us to speak to a new language of interpersonal connection. One that is richer and more definitive than the distinctively sexualized one we’ve been speaking. 

(via once-upon-a-time-the-end)

(via southpawscopic)

Filed under ace relationships romance sexuality language

225 notes

qichi:

i hope you fall in love with someone who makes you question why you ever thought you would be better off alone” i hope someone casually invalidates a fairly significant part of your identity for the sake of a shitty john green-esque text post

I wonder how they expect someone to take that….”Yeah, maybe one day I will have such feelings for someone to the point of co-dependency. What a joyful day that will be, to never again be responsible for my own happiness!”

Aro or not, that’s a rather shitty thing to hope for someone.

It’s twisted that such an unhealthy message is so damn prevalent.

(via aromanticaardvark)

Filed under romance love srsly people wtf love yourself

2,407 notes

fuchsiamae:

one of the most poisonous myths of our culture is that you need to be in love to be fully a person

no

I am not half of a whole

I am whole within myself (and so are you, and so is everybody)

if you can’t live without someone, if you need someone else to feel complete, if you feel like less of a person when you’re not in love, that’s not love, that’s codependence

healthy love is what happens when two whole people choose to stand side by side — not because they need each other, but because they don’t want to be apart even though they could be

I am not waiting for my other half

I am whole

(via aromanticaardvark)

Filed under romance relationships feelings