The LGBT Gamer Community Thread.


Gamer Life General Discussion

7,901 to 7,950 of 17,687 << first < prev | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Honestly, I think you're heterosexual and picky.

First, I'd like to note that I'm not offended by this, however others might feel. Again, I usually refer to myself as straight, since it's close enough for most practical purposes.

That said, this is much the same as a bisexual person saying to a straight or gay person that they're just being picky by preferring one gender. It's untrue because it implies they could 'stop being picky' and suddenly have a wider pool of sex and relationship possibilities. And they can't. Nor can I.

Frankly, in many ways, being demisexual sucks, and I'd 'stop being picky' if I could. I haven't had sex or a romantic relationship in years, and while I'd like to do both, there are literally less than half a dozen women in the world I'm actually attracted to at the moment, and none of them are interested in me in that way, again at least at the moment.

Could I go out and actively make friends with more women? Sure...except that I'm actually pretty happy with my existing friend group for the most part, and would be doing it purely to meet women to sleep with, and that feels really creepy and predatory (in that 'nice guy' kinda way), so I'm not doing it.

I could also go on dating sites, but again, I'm not actually interested in sex or relationships with any of the women on them at the moment...so doing so feels profoundly deceptive, since I'm either going on this whole weird sounding spiel I'm giving here, or saying I only want to be friends when that isn't true in the long term, or saying that I'm interested in a relationship, when that isn't true in the short term. So, any way I do it, I either have to go through this whole big dramatic thing (that makes me look overconfident), or I feel like I'm lying.

So I'd love to 'stop being picky'...only that's not how that works. And I think that not being how it works makes it a sexual orientation.

Jessica Price wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Is it so far out of the norm to only want to or be able to have sex with people you have feelings for? There's a label for that now?

I guess you can take me out of the CIS box and put me in the demisexual box, then.
Yeah, I'm not sure that only being interested in having sex with people for whom you already have feelings puts you on the asexual spectrum.

I agree with this statement in and of itself. But that's not what being demisexual is. It's not 'only being interested in having sex with people you already have feelings for', I agree that this is fairly normal heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual behavior.

But that's not me. I'm not attracted in the least to women I'm not already close friends with. I can, and have, seen women I find attractive on an objective level naked and wasn't aroused in the least because I didn't know them.

And, from description, I'm way closer to heterosexual than many people who'd self-identify as demisexual, since many have to be romantically involved with someone before they find them attractive, and my bar's quite a bit lower.
.
.
.
A response to Qunessa and Joynt Jezebel will follow shortly.

Project Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Krensky wrote:
I'm thouroughly unconvinced asexuality is a spectrum.

Then it's a very good thing that, unless you're part of the asexuality spectrum, it's not up to you to determine such things. :)

Much like I wouldn't presume to tell a woman what is or isn't feminism, I wouldn't tell people on the asexual spectrum what is or isn't asexuality.

Sure, but by the definition of "demisexual" above (not being attracted to people unless you know them well), that's me. And I find the idea that I'm "half"-sexual, or on the asexual spectrum, absurd. Not being attracted to strangers doesn't make you less sexual. It just means what you consider attractive is different.

Project Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I agree with this statement in and of itself. But that's not what being demisexual is. It's not 'only being interested in having sex with people you already have feelings for', I agree that this is fairly normal heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual behavior.

But that's not me. I'm not attracted in the least to women I'm not already close friends with. I can, and have, seen women I find attractive on an objective level naked and wasn't aroused in the least because I didn't know them.

And, from description, I'm way closer to heterosexual than many people who'd self-identify as demisexual, since many have to be romantically involved with someone before they find them attractive, and my bar's quite a bit lower.

Same here. I recognize on an aesthetic level when people I don't know well are attractive, and enjoy looking at them in the same way I enjoy looking at anything that's pretty, but there's no pull there.


Joynt Jezebel wrote:
And on Qunessaa's saying that they didn't know what I was getting at, I was just trying to understand. Rather like Qunessaa I think.

Just as a brief coda, I'm sorry if that sounded suspicious. Tone in a purely textual medium escapes me again. :> I didn't mean to insinuate anything sinister, just to indicate that I wasn't sure if I understood your question, or if I was trying to move the conversation in a direction that would be completely unexpected. I forget that connotation can be such a regional thing, and seeing things just as words on a screen doesn't help.

Liberty's Edge

Qunnessaa wrote:
Thanks for weighing in, Deadmanwalking. I’m not sure if this is what Joynt Jezebel was getting at, but if it’s not too personal and inquisitive to ask, would you be willing to elaborate a bit on how attraction kicks in for you?

Sure. Happy to oblige, though I'm not sure how typical my experiences are.

Qunnessaa wrote:
From the perspective of someone who’s not demisexual but interested in trying to understand important parts of other people’s lives as best she can, I’m also interested in exploring how far possible similarities might go and where they end. In my own experience, in addition to the background of momentary attractions (Oh, that stranger is attractive! And that one! And that one! … I’m an impressionable young thing, I guess. *Blushes.*), I’ve occasionally found myself suddenly realizing that I’m becoming – or, more mortifyingly still, have become – more attracted to someone than I expected.

It's often very much like the latter, with women I know being gradually more and more attractive as I find out more and more about them and grow closer to them.

Qunnessaa wrote:
I guess what I’m asking is whether your experiences lean more to a tipping point in intimacy, unpredictable but after which attraction suddenly becomes possible, or if possibilities develop in a particular relationship in a way that you can see coming, or, heaven forfend, that in retrospect you think you should have seen coming, “OK, I’m close enough to X that in theory I could be attracted to them.”

It's definitely not universal in my interactions with women I become closer to, they also need to be my physical type to at least some degree, and have other traits I find attractive. And yeah, I've definitely seen it coming a time or three, and missed it when I should've seen it at least once.

Qunnessaa wrote:
I ask because, again, as someone who’s not demisexual, my experience of attraction is as sometimes a sort of background, so I’m trying to imagine what it might be like to suddenly realize that one’s attracted to someone without that background – if that’s even how it works, often, or ever. I don’t want to get the wrong idea into my head. I’m sorry for the fuzziness of the phrasing, and I apologize if I’ve inadvertently said something offensive.

There's definitely a background...my attraction just always starts at zero and ramps up relatively slowly as I get to know them. And I can often, but by no means always, tell that things are heading in the direction of me being attracted to them.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Thanks for the reply Deadmanwalking.

And on Qunessaa's saying that they didn't know what I was getting at, I was just trying to understand. Rather like Qunessaa I think.

Cool. :)


Hm.

I don't know. There are plenty of women I thought were attractive until I got to know them better,and others who became more attractive once I got to know them better. I don't think I am a demisexual because I don't really want to have sex with an utter stranger. That said, I do not think there is anything wrong with seeking out someone to get to know for carnal purposes - otherwise one is waiting for a friend to miraculously become attractive/attracted to them, and that is frowned upon mightily in this day and age.

Liberty's Edge

Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Krensky wrote:
I'm thouroughly unconvinced asexuality is a spectrum.

Then it's a very good thing that, unless you're part of the asexuality spectrum, it's not up to you to determine such things. :)

Much like I wouldn't presume to tell a woman what is or isn't feminism, I wouldn't tell people on the asexual spectrum what is or isn't asexuality.

Except, that by your definition, I am part of that supposed spectrum.

If you include people who are sometimes into sex as asexual then the term looses meaning.

Liberty's Edge

Jessica Price wrote:
Sure, but by the definition of "demisexual" above (not being attracted to people unless you know them well), that's me. And I find the idea that I'm "half"-sexual, or on the asexual spectrum, absurd. Not being attracted to strangers doesn't make you less sexual. It just means what you consider attractive is different.

Personally, I find the term useful. Some of that may be our culture's different attitudes towards male and female sexuality, though. I mean, as a guy, it's useful being able to explain why having sex with random strangers holds absolutely no appeal for you.

I also found it surprisingly relieving to have a word for what separated me from most other people I know, sexuality-wise. That was nice. Kinda like my Aspergers diagnosis in a different context, though notably less official.

Jessica Price wrote:
Same here. I recognize on an aesthetic level when people I don't know well are attractive, and enjoy looking at them in the same way I enjoy looking at anything that's pretty, but there's no pull there.

Yeah, that's a good way of putting it.


Krensky wrote:
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Krensky wrote:
I'm thouroughly unconvinced asexuality is a spectrum.

Then it's a very good thing that, unless you're part of the asexuality spectrum, it's not up to you to determine such things. :)

Much like I wouldn't presume to tell a woman what is or isn't feminism, I wouldn't tell people on the asexual spectrum what is or isn't asexuality.

Except, that by your definition, I am part of that supposed spectrum.

If you include people who are sometimes into sex as asexual then the term looses meaning.

If you don't consider yourself under the spectrum, then I can't put you there. It's your decision to make. Therefore, if you don't consider yourself part of the group (by your own declaration), then it seems presumptuous to tell others what asexuality is or isn't.

I consider it a matter of respect, personally.

Liberty's Edge

Freehold DM wrote:

Hm.

I don't know. There are plenty of women I thought were attractive until I got to know them better,and others who became more attractive once I got to know them better. I don't think I am a demisexual because I don't really want to have sex with an utter stranger.

You're probably not. But, again, it goes a little deeper than that. The very fact that you're referring to 'more' or 'less' attractive indicates there was some baseline attraction there.

For me, that's simply not the case. I can grow to dislike someone, but I'm already starting out just about as un-attracted to them as possible.

Freehold DM wrote:
That said, I do not think there is anything wrong with seeking out someone to get to know for carnal purposes

Inherently? Of course not. I just feel like the only ways I could do that would be either dishonest or super awkward. The same certainly doesn't apply to everyone.

Freehold DM wrote:
- otherwise one is waiting for a friend to miraculously become attractive/attracted to them, and that is frowned upon mightily in this day and age.

It is? I've never noticed any major problems. Friends hooking up/becoming something more is hardly unusual in the circles I hang out in.

Krensky wrote:
Except, that by your definition, I am part of that supposed spectrum.

Generally, only you can decide what your sexual orientation is. If that doesn't jibe with others definitions, ignore them, but saying that they're wrong about their sexuality isn't nice either.

Krensky wrote:
If you include people who are sometimes into sex as asexual then the term looses meaning.

Well, that'd be one of the main reason demisexual is a separate term, yeah.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Joe Hex wrote:
Is there a less douchey name for "bromance"? Men who are sexually attracted to women, but form a stronger emotional bond with other men?

Based on the depictions I've seen of "bromances," I'd go with close friendship. But then I feel the term is an effect of some weird notion that showing emotion is un-masculine, so two guys demonstrating affection is somehow "gay," and that's bad, right? So let's invent a word for it to show it's totally not that! Blergh.


Kajehase wrote:
Joe Hex wrote:
Is there a less douchey name for "bromance"? Men who are sexually attracted to women, but form a stronger emotional bond with other men?
Based on the depictions I've seen of "bromances," I'd go with close friendship. But then I feel the term is an effect of some weird notion that showing emotion is un-masculine, so two guys demonstrating affection is somehow "gay," and that's bad, right? So let's invent a word for it to show it's totally not that! Blergh.

Yeah. It's a bummer that emotion = un-masculine. What's more strange for me personally, is that most gay guys I've known are the most masculine guys I've ever met.

Edit: Rather than "strange", the gay guys I've met are just men.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The way I understand it, demisexual is more attracted to the person, no? Like, they don't really get anything out of pornography and such. Am I on the right track here?

It can be hard to understand sexualities that you aren't. Krensky, don't be a jerk. People aren't making up words just to be special. They are exploring the immense complexities of human sexuality and trying to catalog it. It's a difficult, ongoing process that's constantly evolving. Honestly, butting into conversations about things that don't hurt anyone and calling "shenanigans" is incredibly rude.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
The way I understand it, demisexual is more attracted to the person, no?

Pretty close, yeah.

Albatoonoe wrote:
Like, they don't really get anything out of pornography and such.

Well, speaking purely for myself, I can enjoy pornography of some sorts, but only by constructing a narrative/fantasy where I know the woman in question. I find it no more (or less) stimulating than written pornography, and the same amount of imagination is involved.

Albatoonoe wrote:
Am I on the right track here?

Generally speaking, yes. Details obviously vary.

Albatoonoe wrote:
It can be hard to understand sexualities that you aren't. Krensky, don't be a jerk. People aren't making up words just to be special. They are exploring the immense complexities of human sexuality and trying to catalog it. It's a difficult, ongoing process that's constantly evolving. Honestly, butting into conversations about things that don't hurt anyone and calling "shenanigans" is incredibly rude.

For the record, I agree with this in its entirety.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Joe Hex wrote:
Kajehase wrote:
Joe Hex wrote:
Is there a less douchey name for "bromance"? Men who are sexually attracted to women, but form a stronger emotional bond with other men?
Based on the depictions I've seen of "bromances," I'd go with close friendship. But then I feel the term is an effect of some weird notion that showing emotion is un-masculine, so two guys demonstrating affection is somehow "gay," and that's bad, right? So let's invent a word for it to show it's totally not that! Blergh.

Yeah. It's a bummer that emotion = un-masculine. What's more strange for me personally, is that most gay guys I've known are the most masculine guys I've ever met.

Edit: Rather than "strange", the gay guys I've met are just men.

True.

But nevettheless, apologies for bringing an extract of my rant on the deleterious effect of emotophobic macho-culture on heterosexual masculinity to the LGBT thread. ;)

I'll go back to mostly cheering the rest of you on, instead, now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Like, they don't really get anything out of pornography and such.
Well, speaking purely for myself, I can enjoy pornography of some sorts, but only by constructing a narrative/fantasy where I know the woman in question. I find it no more (or less) stimulating than written pornography, and the same amount of imagination is involved.

Yeah, it's similar for me. I usually end up giving up on the pornography because it's much easier to invent my own fantasies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, why would anyone want to be a "special snowflake" when it just makes jerks come out of the woodwork to harass them? Special Snowflake is just a word invented to bully people that are different.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Biological component. Not necessarily genetic. There's a slew of possibilities including genetics, anti androgen interference, chimerism, mosaicism, epigenics, random growth rates in the brain during development... very likely the answer is all of the above. Biology has a number of wonderful and terrifying ways to wind up with a hairless cat.

As for arguing who's on the asexuality spectrum and who's not, we have objective, scientific tests for this sort of thing so there's no need to argue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Labels can be a confusing business, people. In the end, they are a stopgap measure that becomes a serious problem in the long run, I think. YMMV, of course.


Sissyl wrote:
Labels can be a confusing business, people. In the end, they are a stopgap measure that becomes a serious problem in the long run, I think. YMMV, of course.

I have to admit to being a bit confused as to demisexuality being an orientation itself. With asexuality the magnitude and timing of the attraction determines its direction: no magnitude so no time so no direction. With demisexuality it looks like you'd still need to specify an orientation and magnitude.


Qunnessaa wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
And on Qunessaa's saying that they didn't know what I was getting at, I was just trying to understand. Rather like Qunessaa I think.
Just as a brief coda, I'm sorry if that sounded suspicious. Tone in a purely textual medium escapes me again. :> I didn't mean to insinuate anything sinister, just to indicate that I wasn't sure if I understood your question, or if I was trying to move the conversation in a direction that would be completely unexpected. I forget that connotation can be such a regional thing, and seeing things just as words on a screen doesn't help.

Hey, I wasn't offended at all. It is all good. :)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Biological component. Not necessarily genetic. There's a slew of possibilities including genetics, anti androgen interference, chimerism, mosaicism, epigenics, random growth rates in the brain during development... very likely the answer is all of the above. Biology has a number of wonderful and terrifying ways to wind up with a hairless cat.

Well, if you want to be technical about it, all those things can be traced back to genetics. :P

But yes, I should've said biological. To be honest, I don't believe in biological determinism (it's pretty much disproved by actual biology), so I didn't want to draw too much attention to a contentious point.


Right, so I need to get something off my chest and give fair warning to something rather unfortunate my family is experiencing right now.

If you and your partner are planning on having children in a state that refuses to recognize same sex marriage and child custody. Don't.

Recently my mother went through a very nasty (think the breaking glass, cheating, drinking, and arresting kind) of break up with her partner. The two boys they had together are with her ex-partner. They're biologically related to her and had them through artificial insemination.

So basically my mother was discarded like garbage and told the two boys she helped raise, put through school, and basically given a childhood I can't say I don't envy were no longer allowed to see her.

And by law, she cannot fight this. The restraining order her partner got prevents all contact. All of it. From her, from any close relatives. From me, technically, though I have not been told so.

She has no blood relation to these children. She has no legal authority in any way shape or form over them. Nothing.

And her partner has basically told her today that if she jumps through some incredible hoops she can maybe possibly get paid supervised once a month for an hour visitation.

In essence, I've lost two brothers, my mother's lost her children, and overall there is nothing but bitterness.

If this were a straight couple, and they were both biologically related, than you'd expect a custody battle, maybe some compromise. Pretty much anything but my mother basically being chucked aside for new hotness (no joke her partner had a new girl in less than a week so pretty much everyone knows the accusations of cheating have quite a strong bit of evidence). Instead we get this.

So yeah, if you're strongly considering it. These kids are going to be around for at least 18 years before they can make decisions themselves regarding their parents. Divorce in and of itself is ugly enough. It's even uglier when you don't even get a chance to fight for your loved ones. So make sure you can.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I have to admit to being a bit confused as to demisexuality being an orientation itself. With asexuality the magnitude and timing of the attraction determines its direction: no magnitude so no time so no direction. With demisexuality it looks like you'd still need to specify an orientation and magnitude.

You're right. You pretty much do in many cases.

So, in a sense, it's more of an orientation modifier than it is an orientation in it's own right. But you could say something similar about being polyamorous.

Indeed, that's an excellent comparison. Polyamory isn't usually defined as exactly a sexual orientation, but there are certainly some people who are naturally polyamorous and can't really do much about it or happily maintain a monogamous lifestyle, and referring to a person as polyamorous provides useful information.

Similarly, being demisexual can be argued not to be an orientation per se (I probably wouldn't make that argument, but it's an understandable one), but it's certainly an existent thing, and a useful bit of terminology in that context.

Liberty's Edge

Damn, TarkXT, that's awful. My profound sympathies to your mother, and to the children in question. :(

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Yeah, that's... heartbreaking. I wish there were something I could offer beyond sympathy. I'm sorry for you, the children, and everyone else hurt by this.


That's definitely unfair to the highest degree, and why we need equal rights under the law. People think that gay marriage is just being allowed to have your fairytale wedding and your happily ever after. That's absolutely ridiculous, and the absolute least important thing. These sorts of circumstances are frustratingly unjust.


We still have a ways to go. I'm sorry that happened and I wish we could do anything to help.


TarkXT wrote:
Explanation of a travesty of justice

I can't begin to understand how something that horrible could happen to your mother. Unfortunately all I can do is express my deepest regret that such cases are far too common. This is why marriage equality needs to be a thing last decade.

I sincerely hope that you, your mother, and anyone else in or affected by such a situation will find at least a measure of solace if not actual vindication.

7,901 to 7,950 of 17,687 << first < prev | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The LGBT Gamer Community Thread. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.