DeltaAro

If I was younger I would join the Aro Scouts! Oh… they don’t exist... ok … what? Nooo!!

No. The older you are the more you know yourself, but the less opportunities are open to you.

Great movies! I also like the movies starring the famous disciple of the real Bacon Man: Way of the Bacon Enter the Bacon Bacon of Fury

It doesn’t make them feel better about their rejection if you feel guilty, too.

Orange Is the New Bacon

The Hurt Bacon what’s that??? ???

pita

annoying

Final Bacon VII Remake

Well, in fiction, you often have the choice… Even now I am stubborn and believe that Xena and Gabrielle are friends ? (no “just” inserted from me!) and no romo stuff is going on. Sorry to be so blunt: but isn’t it always the case that if you’re in a good mood you more easily deal with a lot of crap?

On top of that, where I live cow milk has lower VAT than plant based milk. It’s not fair.

oh well… Nanny Ogg … yes, she’s quite “adventurous” for her age.

Hello!! ? that’s interesting (must remember)… never thought anyone would feel that way…

The focus was simply on group membership. So this quoted passage would indeed be a counter-example (contrary to your other examples). I agree: LGB and trans “status” are correlated. The problem is: correlated in the wrong direction (since LGB and trans are obviously not considered ”privileged”). So it’s not what we would want for a good “mock argument”! Anyway, perhaps the bigger issue really is that many people think there’s conceptual entailment ace > not-LBG. Or at least that “lgb ace” is something very obscure. Many of those theories have a strong “Cartesian” bent to them: You can be skeptical about everything, but not about what introspection reveals about yourself. The alternative would be introducing elements from behaviorism* – would that be an improvement? * perhaps the aversion to this can be explained by: it’s regarded as “gatekeeping”. But IDK. Of course, but from that angle the whole theory becomes kind of … strange. What should be the common ground instead? Who decides what kind of activism is good & necessary and what is harmful & misguided? What “diverse experiences” are representative? (e. g. for what is fundamentally “wrong” about a society?) So if the whole theory makes any sense at all, it must be from the ”bird’s eye perspective” with some heavy abstractions. That’s okay. But we talked about a relationship itself being LGB. I don’t know what that means, precisely. It seems to be a derived or analogous meaning. It gets a bit tiring to defend positions I do not hold myself. What this was all about is: the analogy or the mock argument ‘allo is just like cis’ does not work. I don’t defend any claims here beside that one. Those people who are offended by “allo” do not think it is just like “cis”! Because they see a conceptual entailment LGB > allo.

Beijing

form

Nearly finished Finished Final Fantasy 7 Remake (never played the original)… didn’t do the DLC with Yuffie, yet. It’s full of romo cringe and very easy on normal difficulty (there is no hard difficulty ok, this gets unlocked after the first playthrough), and has the usual filler side-quests, still Final Fantasy 7 Remake is one of my favorite games since a long time. [I guess I got a bit carried away here, the ending is a bit anti-climactic which sucks]

You could (ok, for “bisexual” fully spelt out instead of just “bi” it would be odd imho if it referred to romanticism). But it doesn’t change much. In the end some people are going to think that they’re lgb because of their sexuality. And therefore that they’re oppressed because of their sexuality. But the term allosexual presumably reverses that and entails the claim that they have privilege because of their sexuality. It’s a paradox for them: how can you be oppressed and privileged for the same thing? Now I’m not willing to defend this reasoning, I don’t take the whole theory that seriously. So discount it as concern trolling if you must. I’m just saying it’s a common way of thinking. Those problems occur with labels that are not independent (different from “mutually exclusive”) from each other. This is not just my speculation, but my observation. For example even here, we had this discussion about the term allosexual and an user wrote: Gender, sexuality, and disability are different things. But how can you be oppressed for the exact same thing you're privileged for? Even in the case of cis women or non-cis men, one axis of privilege and oppression is trans status and the other is alignment under patriarchy so it's not the same thing. As a gray aro, I am stigmatized for my ability to romantically love people of my same gender as well as for how rarely I experience romantic attraction. I'm also targeted for my sexual attraction, which I'm not privileged for. You're invalidating my experiences, posting bigoted propaganda, and being homophobic.

Well that’s ok. But who invokes them here? Not me, for sure. I still suspect that e. g. “asexual bisexual person” would be regarded as a bit paradoxical by the general public. This really depends on the understanding of these words, the concepts behind them. Your example opens up another can of worms, though, since you made it about relationships and not persons. And then these terms take on more of a derived or analogous meaning. We now have to deal with two persons and a special mode of how they relate to each other. Not convinced. Again like in the example: if you know only know that a person is cis or trans, you virtually cannot infer anything about their other qualities in the list. It would not be better, or only very marginally better, than a pure guess. Why not? The logical entailment simply results from definitions of asexuality or e. g. bisexuality that are based on sexual attraction. While those are not common outside of small circles on AVEN and the like, it’s what those who propagate those arguments against the term “allosexual” use. Maybe? As I already said, I don’t think that “truth” can be applied to mere concepts.

I meant this in a statistical sense. For example, if you only know that a person is cis or trans (like in the example), you cannot infer from this: their gender, or if they’re white or a person of color, straight or lgb, able-bodied or disabled, … For lgb and allo OTOH there is logical entailment (or seems to be). Sure, they might in practice be interacting. But in certain situations this also works the other way around, i. e. not being more than additive but less. It’s as simple as you make it. Because these are questions of language, not questions of fact. Since words have emotional baggage and normative connotations attached to them, people are going to have strong opinion about words. The whole thread is about ace and aro terminology! But strictly speaking it changes nothing. It never changes ANYTHING. A claim that has any real content cannot be just about words. It needs to relate concepts – on which we (roughly) all agree on – with each other. So that’s why I wrote “or so is generally believed”. lgb is commonly understood as referring to sexuality, so an ace lgb person is an oxymoron. I really don’t want to argue about this (reasons above). The point is just: those who push this argument against the term “allosexual” understand the terms that way.

The analogy to “cis” only works partially. The usual axes of “privilege / oppression” are unrelated from each other. A person’s “state” can be represented by an n-tuple of independent binary values: man or woman white or person of color cis or trans straight or lgb, able-bodied or disabled etc. So for any combination you can have two people which only differ in one being cis and the other trans; the remaining values are independent from them being cis or trans. But for “allo or ace” this is not the case. Being lgb means you must be allo, you cannot be ace (or so is generally believed). And that’s probably what those who push these “arguments” cannot accept: it cannot be right that being lgb confers (even indirectly) a “privilege”.

I guess this is not really a factual question but more about how the word “kink” is used / understood. Cambridge dictionary says “a strange habit, usually of a sexual nature”. So you’re right. But I still never came across the word “kink” just meaning “strange habit”.

Wikipedia says otherwise… so now whom do I believe? ?‍♀️?‍♂️

The stuff that’s posted here is not very kinky. Also sexual orientations aren’t a kink. @BloodyBlood is the only one who knows the meaning of kink, hell yeah. If it’s not sexual, it’s not a kink. I also think that queer romantic couples are nicer, much nicer. But I don’t understand this special sexual appeal of lesbians. As common as this is, I’d say it’s a kink not to care about lesbians. ? [no, not seriously]