And be one traveler

You can call me M.

Fourth year doctoral student (comp lit) and writing instructor.

Compulsive writer and tea-drinker.

Here you will find things that interest me, amuse me, frustrate me, or simply speak to me.

Enjoy your stay.

For asexuals, sex is like… a donut. When we see a donut, we do not have the urge to eat the donut. This does not necessarily mean we hate the donut, or think the donut is disgusting— many of us even like donuts. But we never have any urge to walk over there and eat it. Demisexuals will have the urge to eat the donut only if it their absolute favorite kind of donut in the whole world, and greysexuals sometimes will have the urge to get the donut, and sometimes not. Celibates are on diets.

http://backroundradio.tumblr.com  (via ancient-amateur)

This is a fantastic analogy, can I marry it?

(via friendleaderp)

Genius.

(via xwingmario)

This is a terrible analogy. First, I don’t have the urge to have sex with every person I see. Second, if someone “like donuts” (aka sex) then they’re not asexual. Third, “demisexual” is a label that was made up by factualwiley as a joke. Fourth, the part about greysexuals is how almost everyone feels (refer to the part where I don’t have some mad urge to sex every person I see). The only purely accurate statement here is the bit about celibacy.

Thanks for the insinuation that people who have sexual attractions have absolutely no preferences or restraint. It makes me feel so loved.

(via amber-and-mercury)

Um.

“First, I don’t have the urge to have sex with every person I see.”

Yeah, no one is saying that you do. This says that sex is like a donut, not people are like donuts. Important distinction. I’m not sure why you jumped to “people are donuts,” but that’s not what the above quote said. If you are capable of feeling sexual attraction at all times provided that you encounter someone of your preference, then that means that you can have the urge to get the donut at all times…something asexual people do not have.

“Second, if someone ‘like donuts’ (aka sex) then they’re not asexual.”

No. No. No. Asexuality is about sexual attraction. Asexual people can enjoy sex. Their genitals are fully functioning and everything. (They can also enjoy masturbation, which given your confusion about whether they enjoy sex might be another misconception you have.) They do not, however, feel sexual attraction to other people. If you don’t understand the difference, that’s probably because you do feel sexual attraction to other people and don’t know what it feels like not to. It’s also possible that you haven’t had to distinguish between sexual attraction, arousal, stimulation, and so on. Not your fault – you didn’t choose to be the way you are – but please don’t project your experience with sex and sexual attraction onto someone else. The bottom line is that not all asexual people enjoy sex, but some do. Telling asexual people who do enjoy sex that they are “not asexual” is an extremely common impulse in a lot of people but it’s not a good one. Please don’t do it again.

“Third, ‘demisexual’ is a label that was made up by factualwiley as a joke.”

No. No. No. NO. Demisexuality is indeed a thing. It is not a joke. And please never, ever tell a large group of people that part of their identity is not valid or does not exist. …Ever.

“Fourth, the part about greysexuals is how almost everyone feels (refer to the part where I don’t have some mad urge to sex every person I see).” 

Again, you’re confusing people and sex again. The donut is SEX, and this is about the ability to FEEL SEXUAL ATTRACTION.

“Thanks for the insinuation that people who have sexual attractions have absolutely no preferences or restraint. It makes me feel so loved.” 

That is not what the above quote said. That was how you chose to read it, which says more about you than the person who explained what the asexual spectrum is to people who don’t get it.

Moral of the story: Please spend more time educating yourself about what something is (in this case, the asexual spectrum) before commenting on it. You’ll come across as highly insensitive and rather ignorant if you don’t. 

It’s odd to me that you reacted in this way to a post about asexuality. Many of your other responses to topics regarding sexuality have been reasonable…at least, the responses that I looked at were. Disappointing, but not unexpected, I suppose. Asexuality / demisexuality / graysexuality are mocked and ridiculed all the time. You’re part of a very large club.

(via petitlitterateur)

Oh for fuck’s sake. Alright, let’s do this.

1) I understand the analogy is donut=sex, not donut=person. The quote compares all desire for sex to wanting to eat a donut. It assumes that every non-asexual person wants to “eat the donut” (by contrasting asexuals, who “do not have the urge to eat the donut”, with sexuals, it assumes we do the opposite), with nothing said about your assumption of “someone of your preference”. So I’m left to assume, in the absence of clarification, that it means that non-asexuals are always ready to sex whomever they see. This also applies to the greysexuals bit.

2) I understand the difference between sexual attraction, arousal, etc. Perhaps not to the extent of an asexual, but I personally experience very little sexual attraction toward strangers (which is part of the reason why I think demis are bullshit, but we’ll get to that). I know asexuals, I’ve talked to them about their sexual habits and whatnot. And while I have no issue with asexuals having sex, the key differentiation is that they’re not having sex for themselves, but for their partners. It’s not liking sex; it’s liking to please/make their partners happy. There’s a difference. Masturbation is an entirely different matter, as no sexual attraction to others is involved with that. Although, I am open to this being due to wording-failure, as the whole analogy is pretty poorly thought-out.

3) I was mistaken by the factualwiley bit on demisexuals. They found the original, which is here, and spread it to tumblr. It started on a roleplay forum. Oh yeah, that’s some trustworthy sexology right there. The people who latched onto this label are not in a special category, because nearly every goddamn human’s libido is affected by their relationship to the person. As I said, I experience nearly zero sexual attraction for people I’m not close to. But I’ll be damned if I use that travesty of a label. It’s just “I wanna be special” run amuck. In addition, studies show that the majority of people stick to people they know, as borne out by the average number of sexual partners (people with wider sexual attraction will generally have more sexual partners). So there’s that too.

4) As the analogy assumes that everyone with sexual attraction is going to eat the donut, it assumes that we will always eat the donut, regardless of… anything. By including the demi bit, it emphasizes that regular “sexuals” are, at the very least, not picky about who they have sex with. It carries over the aloof slut-shaming that, honestly, runs riot in the tumblr a/demi/greysexual community. So I’m not standing for that nonsense.

Moral of the story: Don’t assume that I know nothing about a subject because I said something that you disagree with.

I have nothing against asexuals. Demis and greys, sure, because I think those are unnecessary labels used in order to up the specialness factor. But asexuals as a broad group? Nope, no problems. It’s just when people start using ineffective analogies, and making assumptions that I’m an indiscriminate donut-eater, that I get irate.

(via amber-and-mercury)

Well, you reacted precisely the way I expected you to. Imagine that.

1) How does “But [asexuals] never have any urge to walk over there and eat [the donut]” automatically mean that sexuals of every type will always have the urge to eat every donut they see? I like that you’ve admitted that this is an assumption on your part, but I do not see why you made THIS assumption. I’d say that your reasoning is flawed if I suspected that ‘reason’ of any kind had played a role in your reaction.

2) Asexuals engage in sex for their partners, yes. Does that mean they never enjoy the actual sex and the stimulation? You presumably understand that there is a difference between feeling the urge to engage in sex and enjoying the actual sex? Is it really that difficult to grasp that the asexual partner might enjoy the actual act but have no desire to initiate it to begin with? (And please don’t rely on the “But I know asexuals so I totally have authority on the issue I swear” thing. Your asexual acquaintances do not speak for the entirety of the population any more than any member of any given population can speak for the whole.)

3) “Nearly every goddamn human’s libido is affected by their relationship to the person.” God damn it. This is a textbook misunderstanding of the demisexuality label. This is not about your libido just being “affected.” This is about ONLY feeling sexual attraction, PERIOD, when you’ve developed a strong attachment to the individual and being INCAPABLE of feeling sexual attraction to people with whom you do not have that attachment. It’s not about “being picky.” It’s about very particular circumstances being required for sexual attraction to even be a possibility. Feeling sexual attraction (to any degree) but not having sex because you’re not close to the person is not the same thing as never feeling sexual attraction, period, unless you are close to the person. There is a difference, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

4) Once again, never once does the analogy suggest that everyone who feels sexual attraction will always want to eat every donut. That’s your projection. You’re assuming some sort of “either-or” situation made up of two and only two hyperbolic reactions. The quote doesn’t suggest that. You’ve just assumed that it does. I have no idea why.

“Moral of the story: Don’t assume that I know nothing about a subject because I said something that you disagree with.”

Oh, it wasn’t because you said something I disagreed with. It’s because you were spewing the same ignorance that I’ve heard far too many times. By the looks of it, you’re perfectly happy doing so. Once again, disappointing, but not at all unexpected.

“I have nothing against asexuals.” Uh-huh. You’ll forgive me if I don’t believe that. As for your concerns about the “specialness factor” (oh, how people love to accuse others who don’t identify the way they do of ‘just wanting to feel special’), I just hope that one day you understand how ridiculous you sound. I doubt you ever will, but one can hope.

Anyway, I don’t foresee any productive outcome to this, so I’ll just leave you to your screaming.

(Source: asexualeducation, via amber-and-mercury)

For asexuals, sex is like… a donut. When we see a donut, we do not have the urge to eat the donut. This does not necessarily mean we hate the donut, or think the donut is disgusting— many of us even like donuts. But we never have any urge to walk over there and eat it. Demisexuals will have the urge to eat the donut only if it their absolute favorite kind of donut in the whole world, and greysexuals sometimes will have the urge to get the donut, and sometimes not. Celibates are on diets.

http://backroundradio.tumblr.com  (via ancient-amateur)

This is a fantastic analogy, can I marry it?

(via friendleaderp)

Genius.

(via xwingmario)

This is a terrible analogy. First, I don’t have the urge to have sex with every person I see. Second, if someone “like donuts” (aka sex) then they’re not asexual. Third, “demisexual” is a label that was made up by factualwiley as a joke. Fourth, the part about greysexuals is how almost everyone feels (refer to the part where I don’t have some mad urge to sex every person I see). The only purely accurate statement here is the bit about celibacy.

Thanks for the insinuation that people who have sexual attractions have absolutely no preferences or restraint. It makes me feel so loved.

(via amber-and-mercury)

Um.

“First, I don’t have the urge to have sex with every person I see.”

Yeah, no one is saying that you do. This says that sex is like a donut, not people are like donuts. Important distinction. I’m not sure why you jumped to “people are donuts,” but that’s not what the above quote said. If you are capable of feeling sexual attraction at all times provided that you encounter someone of your preference, then that means that you can have the urge to get the donut at all times…something asexual people do not have.

“Second, if someone ‘like donuts’ (aka sex) then they’re not asexual.”

No. No. No. Asexuality is about sexual attraction. Asexual people can enjoy sex. Their genitals are fully functioning and everything. (They can also enjoy masturbation, which given your confusion about whether they enjoy sex might be another misconception you have.) They do not, however, feel sexual attraction to other people. If you don’t understand the difference, that’s probably because you do feel sexual attraction to other people and don’t know what it feels like not to. It’s also possible that you haven’t had to distinguish between sexual attraction, arousal, stimulation, and so on. Not your fault – you didn’t choose to be the way you are – but please don’t project your experience with sex and sexual attraction onto someone else. The bottom line is that not all asexual people enjoy sex, but some do. Telling asexual people who do enjoy sex that they are “not asexual” is an extremely common impulse in a lot of people but it’s not a good one. Please don’t do it again.

“Third, ‘demisexual’ is a label that was made up by factualwiley as a joke.”

No. No. No. NO. Demisexuality is indeed a thing. It is not a joke. And please never, ever tell a large group of people that part of their identity is not valid or does not exist. …Ever.

“Fourth, the part about greysexuals is how almost everyone feels (refer to the part where I don’t have some mad urge to sex every person I see).” 

Again, you’re confusing people and sex again. The donut is SEX, and this is about the ability to FEEL SEXUAL ATTRACTION.

“Thanks for the insinuation that people who have sexual attractions have absolutely no preferences or restraint. It makes me feel so loved.” 

That is not what the above quote said. That was how you chose to read it, which says more about you than the person who explained what the asexual spectrum is to people who don’t get it.

Moral of the story: Please spend more time educating yourself about what something is (in this case, the asexual spectrum) before commenting on it. You’ll come across as highly insensitive and rather ignorant if you don’t. 

It’s odd to me that you reacted in this way to a post about asexuality. Many of your other responses to topics regarding sexuality have been reasonable…at least, the responses that I looked at were. Disappointing, but not unexpected, I suppose. Asexuality / demisexuality / graysexuality are mocked and ridiculed all the time. You’re part of a very large club.

(Source: asexualeducation, via amber-and-mercury)

good morning, vietnam: theplanetmidnight: I’m surprised slytherin is so associated with...

theplanetmidnight:

I’m surprised slytherin is so associated with purebloods and rich wizarding families (and basically those with institutional power)

Having power isn’t necessarily the same as wanting power. Wanting power is something I associste with oppressed groups of people. Slytherin…

Interesting points, but I have to disagree.

First, remember that your house isn’t determined by what you have or don’t have, or even what you want. It’s determined by what you value. Those with institutional power can and do value power, and they often do everything to keep it by oppressing those who don’t have it and blocking access to those who want it. Not all of them do, and I don’t think all Slytherins would, but plenty of privileged people do things like this. The Weasleys, however, don’t do that, which is one of the reasons why their children – their pureblood children – are not in Slytherin. Arthur Weasley could choose to focus on something other than Muggles for his career, but he doesn’t; even his small salary, which puts his family into borderline poverty, doesn’t convince him to change his ways. Molly doesn’t want him to. Their children inherit these values. Power and ambition? No thanks. Family ties and adventures? Bring those on. The Weasleys are as pureblooded as the Malfoys, but their value sets are very different. See? Houses are about what you value, not what you have. There are plenty of pureblood characters who are not in Slytherin, because Slytherin is not ‘the house of purebloods.’

Who did value power? Well, Voldemort did – a member of an oppressed and marginalized group, at least at the beginning of his life. He wasn’t a pureblood. He was raised in a Muggle orphanage. He knew he was special and different and used what little power he had against the people who didn’t have it. He was one of those people who valued power and demanded it. And he ended up in Slytherin. So did Snape, another non-pureblood who valued power (and who used degrading slurs against someone he claimed to be his “best friend”). Slytherin, once again, is not the house of purebloods, and not all purebloods end up in Slytherin. Those who value power are the people who end up there.

Then there’s Harry. He was oppressed horribly as a child, marginalized and bullied and abused, but he doesn’t want power. He wants normalcy. Harry associates power with abusers and oppressors. He rejects Malfoy’s invitation for friendship because Malfoy reminds him of Dudley (a person with power). He doesn’t relish his title as “the boy who lived” and doesn’t use his fame to gain followers. He just wants to be a normal kid. When the Sorting Hat notes his thirst to prove himself and offers Slytherin as a house that will make that happen, Harry still rejects the idea. And he ends up in Gryffindor.

And then we have Hermione. She’s the daughter of a pair of dentists, so to call her oppressed is a bit of a stretch. She does want to prove herself, certainly, and does so every day. She’s highly intelligent. But she’s not in Slytherin, and she’s not in Ravenclaw, because power and intelligence aren’t what she values most of all. She even tells Harry that there are more important things. Loyalty and courage are what she values. Gryffindor it is.

(Speaking of Hermione, she does call Ron out on his shit. Hermione, remember, is the one who is scandalized by the oppression of house-elves and who wants equality for the marginalized. Not power for herself, but equality for all.)

As for other oppressed groups, I think it’s a bit on the simplistic side to say they want power. They rarely just want power. They want fairness and an equal chance. Never, ever trust a revolutionary who only wants power. That’s just a tyrant in the making.

So I really don’t see any mixed messages about who Slytherins are, and I don’t see anything troubling with this particular message in the books. We’re even told that not all Slytherins are bad: in the battle of Hogwarts, when McGonagall calls Slughorn’s loyalty into question, he is not only offended by her doubt but fights against Voldemort and the Death Eaters in the battle. Snape was able to overcome his preoccupation with power and fight for what was right (too late for his bigotries to be excused, in my opinion, but that’s open to debate). Harry doesn’t come away from his experience at Hogwarts with the solid belief that all Slytherins are evil, and he even accepts that his son might end up in Slytherin. His son probably won’t, though, because Harry and Ginny probably aren’t teaching their children that power is to be valued above all else. They know the cost of that mindset all too well.

(Source: medeamotheroftheyear, via pilions-deactivated20140101)