I'm (______) and this describes me better

Personally gender doesn’t really factor into my prefs all that much beyond a certain body type, so basic ‘equipment’ is like choosing a chicken or beef (forgive the food ref). What that means to me storywise is it wouldn’t bother me to be given a clear cut choice of orientation just allow me to choose whom I like regardless of their gender. Although there is an advantage to inputting such a choice as to prevent or create an emotional reaction a writer can essentially create events using ones orientation to elicit a feeling or perspective. But that’s kinda tricky to pull off correctly.

On another note, neat scale.
Though on that scale think I’m an F something. Aka hedonist.

1 Like

If you’re talking about, like, being attracted to someone online you’ve never seen- I know that feeling all too well. Then it’s like a reversal, where the personality is checked first, and the appearance is kept in kindof a limbo stasis zone, waiting. It can be either more pleasant, or more frustrating. At least, for me- it depends largely on whether it seems reasonable to try wanting anything beyond chatting online.

1 Like

Is it weird that I think there’s such a difference between wanting sex (irregardless of whether it’s acted on or not) and wanting love/romance? Sometimes wanting one, based almost entirely on physical appearance and requiring a female body, and trying to find a name for this in a gender-rather-than-body-sex-world if ‘attraction to women’ is wrong because ‘woman’ is mental rather than physical (so what’s the physical, then, to be called?) - and sometimes wanting the other, based almost entirely on personality and not recognizing (as in not seeing a difference between) any gender other than the physically set one- trying to express this in a way that doesn’t seem insensitive (because it would be easy to take that way). I’m stuck in a world trying to separate body and mind from each other, trying to express a person as their mind, leaving no term available for the attraction to a body. (so it feels)

Usually it’s somewhere in between- but these things are separate things for me, separate attractions.

When you really do make that connection on line it can be pure hell. You can’t read to much into what their saying, you don’t want to come off as a troll, it tears you up inside each day not knowing but so happy when they chat with you. Ow well life goes on :slight_smile:

I … actually really kinda hate having a crush on anyone for that reason. The muddy middle ground between love and lust. I’d rather love without need, or lust without need. Either way, though, future ‘less than now’ is far more frightening than actually having less than once was.

Doesn’t stop me from becoming interested with gals online, though. :\

1 Like

Biologically speaking, they are completely different; that’s why you can have sex without love or love without sex. The tie-in between sex and romance is mainly a societal opinion, that you should have one without the other, but its extremely often that repeated sex with a person will lead to romantic feelings because they both involve the base aspects of reproduction; sex leads to children which humans instinctually desire so they can continue surviving, and humans, especially ones with babies are have a much better chance of surviving in a group than alone. It’s rather a spin on the idea that humans are biologically social creatures because we have a better chance of surviving together than on our own. It’s all very caveman, but evolution has programmed it all in.

Separating them is often difficult because of this reason, even though the different chemical processes are extremely tied into each other, they’re just that; different. If they weren’t different, then you wouldn’t be able to have one without the other at all.

Rather long-winded, and maybe unnecessarily complicated. It may even be completely off base from what you were asking, but it’s interesting and it ties into the topic.

I love the conversation but I think we are taking the topic off track, probably my fault. :smile:

I’m not sure if this is something that will make much sense, or not…

But when the drive is purely sexual in nature… there’s no desire for social red-tape. The necessity of spending months becoming friends or getting to know each other becomes irrelevent. Even if the morality steps in and says ‘IT MUST BE SO, MAKE IT SO’… there’s not real any compulsion to -need- it. It would be -possible- to see an attractive stranger (and somehow find out they’re willing to have sex with you- something I’ve never figured out) and being willing to do it, and basically never see each other again equally with having it over and over whenever the desire arises, with equal happiness. It’s actually almost the opposite of wanting children or a family; that’s actually rather more frightening and a ‘stay away from’, while the personality-seeking wants to find someone likeable and stick with them. The ideal is, of course, finding someone to fulfill both needs, and essentially all ends of the spectrum. But the more ace-y on the spectrum I get, the more truly content with being single I am, and I don’t much care that I don’t have a sex life of any sort. The more F-ish I get, the more it drives me crazy that I don’t have one, and the more irrational I’d be willing to get to have one. Willing to and doing so being, again, different.

I’m a journalist and I don’t think i’ve ever written a scathing expose of injustice or a gossip rag hit peice.

I spent all spring writing about political commitee hearings and will spend a huge chunk of the summer season writing profiles on the vendors who work my state’s largest farmers market for the yearly magazine.

Please stop characterizing my field based on the tiny fraction of people are are ambulance chasers or PP winning expose writers.

Edit: even when i helped co-write stories on local education for the AP that by most metrics were controversial none of them were dramatic to write most of it was phone interviews and being on hold for hours.

6 Likes

@Lordirish I was lucky enough to have a strong relationship with someone online that wasn’t romantic, so when he completely cut off all communication because I refused to play Bioshock I only felt terrible for like half a week and learned never to ever get too attached to anyone you meet online. Eventually I let my guard down and let myself get attached to someone online again. This was someone who used to do a podcast I listened to and often streams on twitch… She was a small streamer and I was one of her older followers. Unfortunately that meant that she inevitably got to know me a bit after a year or so, and that lead to her coming to realize that I don’t have a problem with arguing for what I feel is right. She cut off all communications and I felt terrible for a few weeks.

Basically, it’s just not worth ever getting attached to someone you meet online because it’s just too easy for them to completely cut you out of their life at a moment’s notice. At least with people you meet IRL you can physically meet up with the person in public and try to get some sort of closure, but online you’re completely at their mercy. They decide they want nothing to do with you anymore, and that’s it.


I just thought of something really confusing… So… transsexuals are defined as identifying as a sex different from their biological one at birth… But doesn’t that lead to a weird contradiction? I mean, you identify as the sex you identify as, but also as transsexual? I guess the latter is just a necessary evil? Sorry if any of the words I used there were offensive. It wasn’t my intention.

This is a bit off topic but here is my understanding:

A transexual does not identify themselves as transexual. They identify themselves as a normal cisgender person would of the sex their biology isn’t. So a female identifies herself as female, biological or not.

Ofc, as discussed elsewhere, there are people on all points of the identity spectrum …

I get that, I do, but the desire for companionship and a sex life would still be there. If I eat 15 cookies in an hour, and then the next hour I just decide to have 2, the desire for a cookie is still there. It’s dissipated to the extent that it’s practically invisible, but it’s there nonetheless.

The idea is to find somebody and stick with them; even if it’s just a hump 'em and dump 'em situation, you’re fulfilling a need for companionship. The personality aspect only comes into play when you want the companionship to last longer than a single encounter because you’d have a source of sustainable happiness.

The morality aspect is tricky, but it ties into this as well though; you may be opposed to a one night stand maybe because you would think ‘but what if I hurt their feelings?’, because you either consciously or unconsciously extrapolate from that thought that if their desire for companionship is rejected, they’re less likely to seek it out the next time. Which affects us deeply because we crave it on different levels, so we label it as ‘wrong’, so it will be less likely to happen to you. Which is why you ‘will’ it to happen, but are more reluctant to actually go out and get it. Free will dictates that you can control yourself if you so desire, but everything comes from biology, even morality.

The need for companionship is king, queen and emperor, and it takes many different forms from simple sex to a long-term relationship. The libido creates this need for companionship, which is why if your libido is extremely low or not even there, you don’t feel the need to connect with others on a sexual or emotional level. So you feel okay with it in these moments.

Its a curse that is why I like being a truck driver, never have to get close enough to people to fall for them. Online is safer for the most part only those that strike a deep cord in me, which is rare that I suffer. But I am not sad over it as it is what it is and we move on. :smile:

1 Like

You’re right on everything except the first half of the third paragraph. Basically just flip the roles there- make the other person me and me the other person. Wait… that doesn’t come out quite right. I mean- I’m opposed to the idea because I would rather have more, and going into it without being able to get more later makes me feel weirdly queasy.

Otherwise, I think you’re spot on.

1 Like

Thank you; the ‘you’ was a hypothetical archetype I was using, and if it works to your situation, we both have a better understanding of how it works.

I’ll give you three guesses what I studied at university. Hint: it wasn’t Fine Arts.

[quote=“Sherlock221B, post:35, topic:17788, full:true”]I’ll give you three guesses what I studied at university. Hint: it wasn’t Fine Arts.
[/quote]

Creative Writing with a minor in Criminology :dolphin:

I was going to guess studies in gender and sexuality, though Zolataya stole mah thunder in the guess. It’s as if she knows~?

1 Like

Funnily enough, both of those were actually my second options in high school. Kudos to you on that.

1 Like

Actually it was Neurobiology. This isn’t even my main focus in neuro, but I remember way too much stuff from the lectures that didn’t pertain to my field of focus. Plus it is actually interesting once you get into it. Besides, I’m an aromantic asexual, so reading Sexuality would have been beyond ironic.

Well, my second guess would have been sociology, so I was a bit off. XD

I would make a completely horrible mentalist. Much better as a writer, methinks. :slight_smile:

And I do agree that the substance of what makes people how they are is fascinating. Hopefully a lot of that shows in my WIP.

1 Like