PsychoSexual

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

Posts tagged sexuality

3,396 notes

anagnori:

When I see people making snide comments about gray-asexual and demisexual people, they always seem to miss the point of why those terms exist.

I suspect that many of the anti-gray, anti-demi people think that gray and demi folks invented these concepts as ways to claim to be oppressed, and to appropriate LGBT+ people’s struggles. I see the “special snowflake” claim trotted out a lot, too; there’s this widespread belief that gray and demi people are “normal” but want to appear different. Sometimes this even bleeds into misogynistic territory, like “All women are like that,” or “You’re slut-shaming people.”

But the thing so many of the anti-gray and anti-demi people don’t realize is that it does not matter how common, or how “normal” gray-asexuality or demisexuality might be. These words were invented to help people understand themselves and figure out how their sexuality worked. Language evolves to reflect the needs of the people who speak it; we invent words all the time so that we can discuss what makes us similar or different, and so that we can communicate those differences to other people.

The fact that so many people have suddenly started identifying as gray-asexual or demisexual is not a sign that these identities are fads. It is a sign that many people find these words useful and important for understanding their feelings and needs. The existence of these words helps people mark the limits and the development of their sexuality, so that they can make better decisions about what kinds of relationships, lifestyles and sexual activities will work best for them. These words are tools that empower people to take control of their bodies, beliefs, and self-esteem instead of passively trying to follow what society tells them is “normal.” And isn’t that kind of empowerment what the sexual liberation movement is all about?

(via southpawscopic)

Filed under sex sexuality identity labels

3,216 notes

panpuru:

panpuru:

ughgh ok we seriously need words to describe identities with matching romantic/sexual identities, as well as non-matching romantic/sexual identities

examples: homoromantic asexual (a non-matching identity) and homoromantic homosexual (a matching identity) 

I’m not imaginative or word-savvy enough to create names for these kinds of identities but uh yooo if any1 wants to it would be sooo appreciated 

OK SO THE AMAZING AND TALENTED SARAH DID EXACTLY THIS AND CREATED TWO BEAUTIFUL NEW WORDS: 

perioriented - “matching” identity

varioriented - "non-matching" identity

While the concepts actually do need a general word, I think they should be more self-explanatory ones. Varioriented may be fairly easy to pick up on & make sense of but where does “peri”oriented come from? Is that prefix really used enough to understand it?

Still a better start than “cross-sexual” though, that’s for sure.

(via aromanticaardvark)

Filed under identity romantic orientation sexuality

60 notes

Technically I’m “demisexual”; why the label is problematic

burnsietransitioning:

I remember reading in my human sexuality class that about 63% of Americans had a “relational” view of sexual activity( i.e. 63% of Americans believe that one should only have sex with people they love.), 19% had a “traditional” view of sexuality(they believe sex should only happen between people who are married), and 18% had a “casual” view of sexual activity(they believe that sex is always fine as long as its between consenting partners).

Basically, the pattern of only engaging in sexual activity with people one loves and has a deep connection with, is the pattern that the vast majority of Americans follow.  The majority of people(at least in the USA) are technically demisexual.  Why have a label that sounds like a sexual orientation, but is confusing because it actually refers to a behavior pattern as opposed to an orientation, when it is the dominant behavior pattern?

It’s not like the word cisgender, used to describe individuals that do not suffer from gender dysphoria and are comfortable in their assigned gender, because that word is necessary because it helps to reduce the othering of trans people.  Rather, the label of demisexual appears to be more along the lines of the dominant group in society inventing a term that others the minority as deviant. Demisexuality as a label is problematic because it characterizes those who do not use it to describe themselves as sexually promiscuous and/or disinterested in relationships that involve emotional depth.  

Terms like cisgender and neurotypical are different because, while describing the majority of people, these terms first began to be used by the minority(people who are not cisgender or neurotypical) because they describe the majority in terms that do not other the minority, whereas before their mainstream usage cisgender and neurotypical individuals were usually described as “normal”, and it doesn’t take much to see how that’s problematic.  By contrast, the label “demisexuality” others the minority. and that’s why it is problematic.

Except that demisexuality has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual activity or who you have sex with.

Demisexuality describes HOW you experience sexual attraction to someone (as in, it’s only ever possible to experience said attraction to someone after spending quite a bit of time bonding with them, it’s never something that just happens upon meeting or hardly knowing someone).

Maybe that is more common than people think, but in a society where we frequently hear phrases like “I’d do them” that indicate sexual attraction upon first seeing someone/not knowing them at all, a term like demisexual can still help people who don’t ever feel that way find some solidarity. 

So yeah, it has absolutely nothing to do with having sex. Your entire post is pointless & just spreads misinformation.

I don’t think there even is a word that describes someone who has sex with only people they’re in intimate relationships with =/ 

(Source: burnsietrans)

Filed under demisexuality demisexual othering sexuality mislabeled

202 notes

thorsockrock:

Tons of people have re-blogged this noting how offensive and problematic it is, especially for a blog like queersecrets which promises to protect us from hateful secrets. I mailed them yesterday explaining that this was what a lot of hate was prefaced with or started as, asking if it was really appropriate to be posted on their blog. Some handful of stuff has been posted since then and still no reply.
Unfollow. I shouldn’t have to put up with hate from a community which had promised me a space safe from that. Any aces or allies out there, I suggest you do the same. It’s not worth it.

That’s really fucking disappointing they didn’t address this at all. 
I don’t find the message itself hateful but yeah, this kind of thing is exactly what breeds bigotry, or at least dismisses/neglect problems asexuals face when they arise. It should never ever have been posted on a site like this.
Fuck you queersecrets. 

thorsockrock:

Tons of people have re-blogged this noting how offensive and problematic it is, especially for a blog like queersecrets which promises to protect us from hateful secrets. I mailed them yesterday explaining that this was what a lot of hate was prefaced with or started as, asking if it was really appropriate to be posted on their blog. Some handful of stuff has been posted since then and still no reply.

Unfollow. I shouldn’t have to put up with hate from a community which had promised me a space safe from that. Any aces or allies out there, I suggest you do the same. It’s not worth it.

That’s really fucking disappointing they didn’t address this at all. 

I don’t find the message itself hateful but yeah, this kind of thing is exactly what breeds bigotry, or at least dismisses/neglect problems asexuals face when they arise. It should never ever have been posted on a site like this.

Fuck you queersecrets. 

(Source: queersecrets)

Filed under sexuality orientation LGBTQA community

178 notes

meeresbande:

iamakiwiandicanfly:

So my partner and I tried to start watching Psych recently, and we were really taken aback by how many, well, *straights* there were on the show. Like, the entire cast seemed to be straight! It was really alarming. But most bizarrely, it wasn’t even a big deal! The fact that all these people just *happened* to be straight wasn’t ever a plot point, and nobody’s character arc centred on their straightness. It really threatened my own homosexual sensibilities and was frankly quite offensive.

Not that there is anything wrong with being straight!

(Source: thekiwicanfly)

Filed under role reversal sexuality

155,966 notes

gohomebiphobia:

dullaidan:

what im saying is that bisexuals, pansexual, and asexuals should all join together so we can be in the fictitious trifecta. enough people will say we’re not real and we’ll all converge together in a massive, fierce mass only spoken of in myth. dont come near us or you too will cease to exist

no one will ever convince me that this hasn’t already happened

the first time we banded together, the power and force was so great that we formed the Bermuda Triangle….. and it must be why we three appear so limitedly throughout history

we had to hide ourselves from each other or risk opening some portal to a netherworld

(via hesterscoresby)

Filed under good way to start the day sexuality visibility

343 notes

A brief lesson on polysemy.

the-gilded-masquerade:

Here is a list of random words that have more than one definition:

  • pupil
  • nail
  • confound
  • type
  • rear
  • stream
  • hearing
  • drive
  • block
  • circuit
  • shock
  • light
  • boot
  • more
  • ruler

In short, any argument against people using the term asexual to name a valid sexual orientation simply because it is also used to describe a specific type of reproduction is inherently bullshit. 

(via dearnonacepeople)

Filed under asexuality words sexuality language

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