You have not yet responded to the forum.

Here you will find the last 3 forum topics
you have posted a comment on.
+ add shout
Sweets
Todays my birthday
0 | 0 | 0 | 0
0%
To join the forums you need to be logged in.

Click here to register your own account for free and I will personally explain to you how you can start getting your own fans and, making popdollars.
> Close
Helper
Forum
Startalk
Blog statistics
Friends management



Topics   Messages
16 of the 24 stars earned

Forum

General < General First | Previous | Page: | Next | Last
im confuse
Account deleted




wrote:
Yoko wrote:
i dont really understand separating romance and sexuality

they go together ,  whether you have a low/no sex drive or not,  theyre integrally linked and unless you have 0 romantic attraction and 0 interest in or response to physical sensual touch, you have a sexuality no matter how little part it has in your life

im convinced oversexualisation and pornification of society is just making people feel outcast when they dont live up to the horny porno stereotype thats integrated all forms of media, leaving them feel that theres something missing or that they dont have a sexuality when in fact their sexuality and drive is extremely normal,  and the pornified mass exemplar is the one thats out of the ordinary













ok im just ranting here     i dont know the answer to ur problem
Some people experience romantic but no sexual attraction and vice versa, so I think it makes quite sense to define them separately (just my opinion ofc) 

Even as a bi person it helps me to understand and explain it (eg why I don't want a relationship with a guy) 
Date: 14-08-2018 02:43
Private
World famous



Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Yoko wrote:
i dont really understand separating romance and sexuality

they go together ,  whether you have a low/no sex drive or not,  theyre integrally linked and unless you have 0 romantic attraction and 0 interest in or response to physical sensual touch, you have a sexuality no matter how little part it has in your life

im convinced oversexualisation and pornification of society is just making people feel outcast when they dont live up to the horny porno stereotype thats integrated all forms of media, leaving them feel that theres something missing or that they dont have a sexuality when in fact their sexuality and drive is extremely normal,  and the pornified mass exemplar is the one thats out of the ordinary













ok im just ranting here     i dont know the answer to ur problem
Some people experience romantic but no sexual attraction and vice versa, so I think it makes quite sense to define them separately (just my opinion ofc) 

Even as a bi person it helps me to understand and explain it (eg why I don't want a relationship with a guy) 
i think what people call romantic love in that situation is more likely to be that theyre experiencing companionate love rather than passionate love.   passionate love is sexual and arousal and pleasure is a fundamental part of it.   whereas companionate love is more platonic

i would just say its a preference, bisexuality is naturally tilted one way or the other, its rarely 50/50         i think using the theory of aromance and asexuality to understand urself is fine but most of the time it just confuses people and creates more pressure to define where your sexuality sits.  obviously this is different for everyone,  just giving my view lol - which is that if you experience passionate love for somebody, regardless of how far urges go (whether its just kissing, or up to intercourse etc) then thats a sexual feeling
21
Posts: 23197
Date: 14-08-2018 02:53
Bloodflowers
Popstar



Bloodflowers wrote:
Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Yoko wrote:
i dont really understand separating romance and sexuality

they go together ,  whether you have a low/no sex drive or not,  theyre integrally linked and unless you have 0 romantic attraction and 0 interest in or response to physical sensual touch, you have a sexuality no matter how little part it has in your life

im convinced oversexualisation and pornification of society is just making people feel outcast when they dont live up to the horny porno stereotype thats integrated all forms of media, leaving them feel that theres something missing or that they dont have a sexuality when in fact their sexuality and drive is extremely normal,  and the pornified mass exemplar is the one thats out of the ordinary













ok im just ranting here     i dont know the answer to ur problem
Some people experience romantic but no sexual attraction and vice versa, so I think it makes quite sense to define them separately (just my opinion ofc) 

Even as a bi person it helps me to understand and explain it (eg why I don't want a relationship with a guy) 
i think what people call romantic love in that situation is more likely to be that theyre experiencing companionate love rather than passionate love.   passionate love is sexual and arousal and pleasure is a fundamental part of it.   whereas companionate love is more platonic

i would just say its a preference, bisexuality is naturally tilted one way or the other, its rarely 50/50         i think using the theory of aromance and asexuality to understand urself is fine but most of the time it just confuses people and creates more pressure to define where your sexuality sits.  obviously this is different for everyone,  just giving my view lol - which is that if you experience passionate love for somebody, regardless of how far urges go (whether its just kissing, or up to intercourse etc) then thats a sexual feeling
but is kissing really a sexual thing
17
Posts: 28905
Date: 14-08-2018 02:57
Account deleted




wrote:
Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Yoko wrote:
i dont really understand separating romance and sexuality

they go together ,  whether you have a low/no sex drive or not,  theyre integrally linked and unless you have 0 romantic attraction and 0 interest in or response to physical sensual touch, you have a sexuality no matter how little part it has in your life

im convinced oversexualisation and pornification of society is just making people feel outcast when they dont live up to the horny porno stereotype thats integrated all forms of media, leaving them feel that theres something missing or that they dont have a sexuality when in fact their sexuality and drive is extremely normal,  and the pornified mass exemplar is the one thats out of the ordinary













ok im just ranting here     i dont know the answer to ur problem
Some people experience romantic but no sexual attraction and vice versa, so I think it makes quite sense to define them separately (just my opinion ofc) 

Even as a bi person it helps me to understand and explain it (eg why I don't want a relationship with a guy) 
i think what people call romantic love in that situation is more likely to be that theyre experiencing companionate love rather than passionate love.   passionate love is sexual and arousal and pleasure is a fundamental part of it.   whereas companionate love is more platonic

i would just say its a preference, bisexuality is naturally tilted one way or the other, its rarely 50/50         i think using the theory of aromance and asexuality to understand urself is fine but most of the time it just confuses people and creates more pressure to define where your sexuality sits.  obviously this is different for everyone,  just giving my view lol - which is that if you experience passionate love for somebody, regardless of how far urges go (whether its just kissing, or up to intercourse etc) then thats a sexual feeling
Is kissing and physical contact always passionate love though? Like it developed from mothers feeding their babies, I would hardly call that sexual 
Date: 14-08-2018 02:58
Private
World famous



Yoko wrote:
Paramore wrote:
Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Some people experience romantic but no sexual attraction and vice versa, so I think it makes quite sense to define them separately (just my opinion ofc) 

Even as a bi person it helps me to understand and explain it (eg why I don't want a relationship with a guy) 
i think what people call romantic love in that situation is more likely to be that theyre experiencing companionate love rather than passionate love.   passionate love is sexual and arousal and pleasure is a fundamental part of it.   whereas companionate love is more platonic

i would just say its a preference, bisexuality is naturally tilted one way or the other, its rarely 50/50         i think using the theory of aromance and asexuality to understand urself is fine but most of the time it just confuses people and creates more pressure to define where your sexuality sits.  obviously this is different for everyone,  just giving my view lol - which is that if you experience passionate love for somebody, regardless of how far urges go (whether its just kissing, or up to intercourse etc) then thats a sexual feeling
but is kissing really a sexual thing
its cultural but most people who kiss in a relationship are kissing on the lips for closeness and for physical sensation which is mildly arousing                  so i would say its very mildly sexual in that context
21
Posts: 23197
Date: 14-08-2018 02:59
Bloodflowers
Popstar



Bloodflowers wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Some people experience romantic but no sexual attraction and vice versa, so I think it makes quite sense to define them separately (just my opinion ofc) 

Even as a bi person it helps me to understand and explain it (eg why I don't want a relationship with a guy) 
i think what people call romantic love in that situation is more likely to be that theyre experiencing companionate love rather than passionate love.   passionate love is sexual and arousal and pleasure is a fundamental part of it.   whereas companionate love is more platonic

i would just say its a preference, bisexuality is naturally tilted one way or the other, its rarely 50/50         i think using the theory of aromance and asexuality to understand urself is fine but most of the time it just confuses people and creates more pressure to define where your sexuality sits.  obviously this is different for everyone,  just giving my view lol - which is that if you experience passionate love for somebody, regardless of how far urges go (whether its just kissing, or up to intercourse etc) then thats a sexual feeling
Is kissing and physical contact always passionate love though? Like it developed from mothers feeding their babies, I would hardly call that sexual 
what
17
Posts: 28905
Date: 14-08-2018 02:59
Private
World famous



Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Some people experience romantic but no sexual attraction and vice versa, so I think it makes quite sense to define them separately (just my opinion ofc) 

Even as a bi person it helps me to understand and explain it (eg why I don't want a relationship with a guy) 
i think what people call romantic love in that situation is more likely to be that theyre experiencing companionate love rather than passionate love.   passionate love is sexual and arousal and pleasure is a fundamental part of it.   whereas companionate love is more platonic

i would just say its a preference, bisexuality is naturally tilted one way or the other, its rarely 50/50         i think using the theory of aromance and asexuality to understand urself is fine but most of the time it just confuses people and creates more pressure to define where your sexuality sits.  obviously this is different for everyone,  just giving my view lol - which is that if you experience passionate love for somebody, regardless of how far urges go (whether its just kissing, or up to intercourse etc) then thats a sexual feeling
Is kissing and physical contact always passionate love though? Like it developed from mothers feeding their babies, I would hardly call that sexual 
no, of course not. but as weve progressed as a species and through time, kissing on the lips further than gentle pecking is almost always an act of showing sexual attraction, no matter how mild
21
Posts: 23197
Date: 14-08-2018 03:00
Bloodflowers
Popstar



Bloodflowers wrote:
Yoko wrote:
Paramore wrote:
Yoko wrote:
i think what people call romantic love in that situation is more likely to be that theyre experiencing companionate love rather than passionate love.   passionate love is sexual and arousal and pleasure is a fundamental part of it.   whereas companionate love is more platonic

i would just say its a preference, bisexuality is naturally tilted one way or the other, its rarely 50/50         i think using the theory of aromance and asexuality to understand urself is fine but most of the time it just confuses people and creates more pressure to define where your sexuality sits.  obviously this is different for everyone,  just giving my view lol - which is that if you experience passionate love for somebody, regardless of how far urges go (whether its just kissing, or up to intercourse etc) then thats a sexual feeling
but is kissing really a sexual thing
its cultural but most people who kiss in a relationship are kissing on the lips for closeness and for physical sensation which is mildly arousing                  so i would say its very mildly sexual in that context
i guess it's up to each person but i would say it's more of a love thing and not a sexual thing unless it's like.. making out
17
Posts: 28905
Date: 14-08-2018 03:01
Account deleted




wrote:
Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Yoko wrote:
i think what people call romantic love in that situation is more likely to be that theyre experiencing companionate love rather than passionate love.   passionate love is sexual and arousal and pleasure is a fundamental part of it.   whereas companionate love is more platonic

i would just say its a preference, bisexuality is naturally tilted one way or the other, its rarely 50/50         i think using the theory of aromance and asexuality to understand urself is fine but most of the time it just confuses people and creates more pressure to define where your sexuality sits.  obviously this is different for everyone,  just giving my view lol - which is that if you experience passionate love for somebody, regardless of how far urges go (whether its just kissing, or up to intercourse etc) then thats a sexual feeling
Is kissing and physical contact always passionate love though? Like it developed from mothers feeding their babies, I would hardly call that sexual 
no, of course not. but as weve progressed as a species and through time, kissing on the lips further than gentle pecking is almost always an act of showing sexual attraction, no matter how mild
I've never really seen a simple kiss as something sexual, so I guess it's really cultural 
Date: 14-08-2018 03:02
Private
World famous



Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Is kissing and physical contact always passionate love though? Like it developed from mothers feeding their babies, I would hardly call that sexual 
no, of course not. but as weve progressed as a species and through time, kissing on the lips further than gentle pecking is almost always an act of showing sexual attraction, no matter how mild
I've never really seen a simple kiss as something sexual, so I guess it's really cultural 
i dont find a peck sexual but i think anything further than that is,  thats where id draw my personal sort of like   category boundary
21
Posts: 23197
Date: 14-08-2018 03:03
Account deleted




wrote:
But I mean like feelings are complicated, I have experienced being sexually attracted to someone and being absolutely not in love or passionate or whatever, but others may have not experienced this. 
Date: 14-08-2018 03:08
Bloodflowers
Popstar



Bloodflowers wrote:
Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
Yoko wrote:
no, of course not. but as weve progressed as a species and through time, kissing on the lips further than gentle pecking is almost always an act of showing sexual attraction, no matter how mild
I've never really seen a simple kiss as something sexual, so I guess it's really cultural 
i dont find a peck sexual but i think anything further than that is,  thats where id draw my personal sort of like   category boundary
but if he doesn't want to kiss a boy at all
i doubt he would be bisexual or biromantic or w/e
17
Posts: 28905
Date: 14-08-2018 03:09
Bloodflowers
Popstar



Bloodflowers wrote:
disintegration wrote:
But I mean like feelings are complicated, I have experienced being sexually attracted to someone and being absolutely not in love or passionate or whatever, but others may have not experienced this. 
i think that's pretty common tbh
17
Posts: 28905
Date: 14-08-2018 03:10
Private
World famous



Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
But I mean like feelings are complicated, I have experienced being sexually attracted to someone and being absolutely not in love or passionate or whatever, but others may have not experienced this. 
its hard to explain but i think my view  if its simplified  is more like

vvvvvvv spectrum of attraction to someone   vvvvvvvv

passionate love /  crush state  -------------------------------------------------->  pure sexual arousal and attraction

<<this side is more
a crush
light pecking
you care for them
you want to be in a relationship with them that you would describe as more than platonic




that side>>>
you dont really necessarily care for them 
but you find them hot
dont have to have a crush
sexual attraction



i dont like explaining this as a spectrum though because i dont think the sides are weighted that way, you can be 100% at both ends within your attraction to somebody . or only at one end entirely.  but i feel everything on that spectrum is a part of sexuality, even if its all the way at the left



does this make sense lol 
21
Posts: 23197
Date: 14-08-2018 03:13 | Times changed: 2
Private
World famous



Yoko wrote:
Paramore wrote:
Yoko wrote:
disintegration wrote:
I've never really seen a simple kiss as something sexual, so I guess it's really cultural 
i dont find a peck sexual but i think anything further than that is,  thats where id draw my personal sort of like   category boundary
but if he doesn't want to kiss a boy at all
i doubt he would be bisexual or biromantic or w/e
i doubt it too   unless he has some deep internalised homophobia where hes programmed to react with disgust
21
Posts: 23197
Date: 14-08-2018 03:15
Post comment
Post Comment
To load new posts: activated
First | Previous | Page: | Next | Last
© 2023 Terms of Use