1. 08:49 16th Apr 2014

    Notes: 276784

    Reblogged from lazytechsupport

    Tags: asexualpansexual

    lazytechsupport:

    schrodingersnerd:

    everythingisnightvale:

    discontentramblings:

    An asexual and pansexual become room-mates and have wacky adventures

    The show is called ‘All or Nothing’

    Plot twist: the asexual is really super outgoing and is a huge flirt while the pansexual is extremely socially awkward and has trouble ordering coffee let alone getting a date.

    image

    my hand slipped

    neverrwhere! It’s us!

    Can this be a real thing? Pretty please?

     
  2. You know how occasionally posts go around Tumblr saying something like “if you ask me how lesbians have sex I feel really really sorry for your partner(s)”?

    If you ask me how I have relationships if I’m not romantically or sexually attracted, I feel really really sorry for everyone who loves you.

     
  3. Aromance, asexuality, and polyamory

    go-blondie-go:

    [I cut out some stuff for focus; click here to read it.]

    Also, how does asexuality and aromanticism work with polyamory? That sounds contradictory.

    For context, go-blondie-go is referring to this bit from my profile: "asexual, aromantic, very connected to polyamory. For the moment, anyway."

    It seems you’re familiar with the working definitions, go-blondie-go, but just in case some readers aren’t:

    • asexual - does not experience sexual attraction
    • aromantic - does not experience romantic attraction
    • polyamorous - is able to engage in multiple loving (usually romantic or sexual) relationships at once

    To begin with, I am definitely not monogamous. But I am also very cautious about calling myself poly, because I share your skepticism. I went as far as coming out as not-poly on my poly webcomic. But the thing is, everyone responded and said that I fit under the poly umbrella anyway.

    I found the wikipedia page on Romance to be helpful. But the way I try to wangle it is this. Do I have any relationships that a hypothetical stereotypical monogamous spouse would have an issue with? And I find that the answer is yes. I’ve got one partner (and I’m not even sure that’s the right word!) who lives a billion miles away and is married, but there is definitely a thing there that I cannot define. I love her a lot and we are occasionally (and I mean occasionally) sexual but that doesn’t make it “more” relationshippy. I even hope that we have sex again because I like feeling that way with her. I don’t want her romantically or sexually, but when I check internally I still want her a LOT. This has been a subject of bafflement for both of us, but we’re just going with it to see what happens, and have been doing so for many years.

    And then there’s the person I spend most of my time with; we are very close, we do most of our stuff together for disability support stuff, but we are also sometimes very cuddly and smooshy in a way that is just very physically affectionate. It is not, however, romantic. We don’t have what we call the “bargains” that most romantic couples do; there is no promise that we will continue to spend time together, and no assumption (that we will always be up for cuddles or talking about stuff that requires trust, or even that we will trust each other). But if I had a husband or wife, they would be extremely pissed off at the amount of time we spend together, the amount of information I trust them with, the snuggling we sometimes do, etc.

    My hypothetical spouse would no longer feel special or necessary, because I can get so much of what I need from others.

    And on top of all this, my closeness with these people and my hypothetical spouse does not change how I approach the world, which is with openness. I never ever wonder, when meeting someone, if I should behave differently because of any existing friendships or intimate relationships, and if I meet someone I want to be close to, I will not be happy to let myself be trusting and open with them until they know that they’re not the only person I’m intimate with and they’re comfortable with that.

    Poly people see all of this, and they call me polyamorous. I’m okay with this! :) It’s a great umbrella to stand under, and the company is good. I don’t tend to call myself polyamorous, but I do have a significant connection to polyamory. Denying that would be foolish, I think.

    I just know that someone’s going to ask how it’s not romantic or sexual if it is intimate. So I will answer it preemptively. ;) There are ways of being intimate that involve neither sex nor romance, and everyone will experience this differently. It takes me a very very long time to trust someone, for example; both of my relationships that I call intimate involve a lot of trust. Both relationships involve a physical and behavioural ease that I don’t experience with most people. And then of course there’s the love, which I reckon there’s a lot of. But I don’t have with either of them “a feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love”, or “a quality or feeling of mystery, excitement, and remoteness from everyday life”, which is what appears when I google romance definition.

    Sure, a lot of romantic relationships have what I have with these people, but there’s something the romantic folks have that I don’t.

     
  4. (via Poly in Pictures - Asexy and well-covered)
More of these for sale, you say? Can pay with PayPal or bitcoin? Available worldwide, from £15 including P&P. :)

    (via Poly in Pictures - Asexy and well-covered)

    More of these for sale, you say? Can pay with PayPal or bitcoin? Available worldwide, from £15 including P&P. :)

     
  5. (via Poly in Pictures - Asexual handwarmers)
From £15 including postage, UK-based with international options, and I am experimentally taking payment in Bitcoin.

    (via Poly in Pictures - Asexual handwarmers)

    From £15 including postage, UK-based with international options, and I am experimentally taking payment in Bitcoin.

     
  6. (Source: muskraturine)

     
  7. If you’re quoting our definitions and telling the world how you just don’t get why our experience is in any way non-normative, you’re by definition not having our experience and it’s therefore not yours to describe. If your experience isn’t our experience, don’t tell us how to talk about it.
    — Everyday Ignorance: On the inside - on the various asexual experiences.
     
  8. Anonymous asked: I don't really know anything about polygamy. But you describe yourself as agender/asexual/aromantic. What does all that mean, exactly? Also, how can you be attached to polygamy for the moment? (Just curious, not having a go). I thought polygamy was a life long thing? Like I said, I just don't know much about this stuff. So could you explain it? Thank yoooou. :)

    Sure, why not? I mean, lots of people say GOOGLE IT but it’s often different for everyone, so there we are. It takes all sorts. :)

    • Agender - I have no gender.
    • Asexual - I am not sexually attracted to people.
    • Aromantic - I am not romantically attracted to people, and don’t take part in romantic relationships.

    I’m not polygamous; polygamy refers specifically to marriage, and I don’t want to get married. Yes, it is a lifelong thing, I guess? If people marry more than one person, that sounds pretty long-term to me.

    I’m also not polyamorous, because polyamorous folk (for the most part, in my experience, there are plenty of exceptions) maintain multiple romantic relationships and I don’t maintain any romantic relationships.

    As for the “for the moment” bit, that’s just a way of saying that everything is a bit transient. When I brought up my attitude to relationships in a polyamory forum online, everyone basically said, “okay so you’re not polyamorous because you don’t feel like you are, but we reckon the way you do things, ie: non-monogamy, will mean that you’ll always be welcome with the polyamorous folk regardless.” Which I thought was very sweet. :)

    Since then, the best label I’ve found to describe what I do is “relationship anarchist”. Some relationships are friendships, some are sexual sometimes, and some are both sometimes. But each individual relationship stands on its own and is unaffected by the others. I guess some people are romantic within relationship anarchy, but not me.

    Does that help? I hope so. :) If you want any more information about anything, googling will probably help a lot, but if you are still confused after that then please feel free to badger me further. Also, here is a badger for you. (Original, creative commons license)

     
  9. Fact: Asexuals are completely incapable of dancing.

    100% true, but that doesn’t stop me trying, damn right.

     
  10. FACT: It’s called a Full House in cards because, by gay tradition passed down through the ages, three aces and two drag queens in one building is the maximum number allowed.