Topic: what does this mean
dw started this discussion 5 years ago #100,707
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,136,305
> Akiosexual (also called akionesexual and lithsexual) refers to a person who experiences sexual attraction, but has their feelings fade if reciprocated. Akiosexual can also be defined as someone who doesn't care or want their feelings reciprocated.
Huh. Never heard that before. Where is this list from?
Huh. Never heard that before. Where is this list from?
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,307
@previous (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
Looks like okcupid to me!
Also is that really properly considered an "orientation"? An orientation is a term that captures the kinds of people you are attracted to. This is more of a personality trait.
Looks like okcupid to me!
Also is that really properly considered an "orientation"? An orientation is a term that captures the kinds of people you are attracted to. This is more of a personality trait.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
dw (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,308
@1,136,305 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
yeah it's the OKC screen where you select who u want to match with
yeah it's the OKC screen where you select who u want to match with
dw (OP) double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,309
You have to scroll through the normal ones first though
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,312
@1,136,307 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
@1,136,308 (dw)
Wild they must have updated the app's appearance. I don't remember there being that many orientations either.
And i agree that it doesn't strike me as an orientation. Same with sapiosexual and demisexual. Asexuality seems more legit (since it actually describes who you're [not] attracted to) but also i feel a lot of teens who just want to feel special or just haven't yet met anyone they're attracted to (because theyre still in high school and haven't been exposed to many people yet) claim to asexual.
@1,136,308 (dw)
Wild they must have updated the app's appearance. I don't remember there being that many orientations either.
And i agree that it doesn't strike me as an orientation. Same with sapiosexual and demisexual. Asexuality seems more legit (since it actually describes who you're [not] attracted to) but also i feel a lot of teens who just want to feel special or just haven't yet met anyone they're attracted to (because theyre still in high school and haven't been exposed to many people yet) claim to asexual.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 26 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,322
mark me down for "Jesus Christ fuck off with this shit"
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,323
@1,136,312 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
Yeah I can understand asexuality, even though I'm not asexual. I agree that if it's used by like an 18 year old who dated another person their age for 3 months and then broke up, it feels kinda weak. I can at least conceptually understand how that or other orientations would make sense as a useful, albeit niche, term. But some of these are just...I don't get it. Like if I said I was "physiosexual" because I am attracted to people's bodies more than their minds, that's...not an orientation? That's just a sexual preference, which is fine and totally commonplace. Everyone who's looking for a partner is consciously or unconsciously getting a sense for what they're like physically, intellectually, emotionally, etc., and everyone places different emphasis on those elements. Calling yourself a "sapiosexual" is just identifying yourself with a term that signals you spend a lot of time reading about sex and dating online. It doesn't tell people what kind of person you are attracted to (like gay/straight/bi/pan/whatever), it tells people what kind of person you are. Which is fine, and is the purpose of having a dating profile, but it's just a weird way to frame it all.
And looking at some of these other ones, "Reciprosexual or recipsexual is a sexual orientation on the asexual spectrum meaning someone who does not experience sexual attraction unless they know that the other person is sexually attracted to them first."
"Grayromanticism is a romantic orientation on the aromantic spectrum sitting somewhere between romantic and aromantic. Someone who is grayromantic may experience romantic attraction only occasionally, experience romantic attraction but not desire a romantic relationship, or desire a romantic relationship that is not quite platonic and not quite romantic."
I'm sorry but these just feel like orientations for people who have no idea what they're looking for in a partner, or are hardened against unrequited love. Which is fine, I fall into those categories as well. I just don't think these are discrete orientations, or labels that have anywhere the same usefulness or clarity of the aforementioned gay/straight/bi etc.
Yeah I can understand asexuality, even though I'm not asexual. I agree that if it's used by like an 18 year old who dated another person their age for 3 months and then broke up, it feels kinda weak. I can at least conceptually understand how that or other orientations would make sense as a useful, albeit niche, term. But some of these are just...I don't get it. Like if I said I was "physiosexual" because I am attracted to people's bodies more than their minds, that's...not an orientation? That's just a sexual preference, which is fine and totally commonplace. Everyone who's looking for a partner is consciously or unconsciously getting a sense for what they're like physically, intellectually, emotionally, etc., and everyone places different emphasis on those elements. Calling yourself a "sapiosexual" is just identifying yourself with a term that signals you spend a lot of time reading about sex and dating online. It doesn't tell people what kind of person you are attracted to (like gay/straight/bi/pan/whatever), it tells people what kind of person you are. Which is fine, and is the purpose of having a dating profile, but it's just a weird way to frame it all.
And looking at some of these other ones, "Reciprosexual or recipsexual is a sexual orientation on the asexual spectrum meaning someone who does not experience sexual attraction unless they know that the other person is sexually attracted to them first."
"Grayromanticism is a romantic orientation on the aromantic spectrum sitting somewhere between romantic and aromantic. Someone who is grayromantic may experience romantic attraction only occasionally, experience romantic attraction but not desire a romantic relationship, or desire a romantic relationship that is not quite platonic and not quite romantic."
I'm sorry but these just feel like orientations for people who have no idea what they're looking for in a partner, or are hardened against unrequited love. Which is fine, I fall into those categories as well. I just don't think these are discrete orientations, or labels that have anywhere the same usefulness or clarity of the aforementioned gay/straight/bi etc.
jodie !foster2PAQ joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,327
aroflux sounds like some trademarked textile feature for sportswear wtf is that
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,330
@1,136,323 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I just don't think these are discrete orientations, or labels that have anywhere the same usefulness or clarity of the aforementioned gay/straight/bi etc.
I completely agree. They're just...not orientations.
> I just don't think these are discrete orientations, or labels that have anywhere the same usefulness or clarity of the aforementioned gay/straight/bi etc.
I completely agree. They're just...not orientations.
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL double-posted this 5 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,332
jodie !foster2PAQ replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,334
jodie !foster2PAQ double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,335
@1,136,330 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
> >I just don't think these are discrete orientations, or labels that have anywhere the same usefulness or clarity of the aforementioned gay/straight/bi etc.
>
> I completely agree. They're just...not orientations.
> no spce after ellipsis
shitlisted
> >I just don't think these are discrete orientations, or labels that have anywhere the same usefulness or clarity of the aforementioned gay/straight/bi etc.
>
> I completely agree. They're just...not orientations.
> no spce after ellipsis
shitlisted
dw (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,346
dw (OP) double-posted this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,347
These are the genders u can datejodie !foster2PAQ replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,348
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,350
dw (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,351
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,352
This is great. It'll take you half an hour to set up your profile ?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,353
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,361
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL double-posted this 5 years ago, 43 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,362
@1,136,352 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I mean that shouldn't take longer than a minute
Writing a bio and answering the questions that go with the bio is what takes a lot of time on OKCupid
I mean that shouldn't take longer than a minute
Writing a bio and answering the questions that go with the bio is what takes a lot of time on OKCupid
(Edited 49 seconds later.)
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 32 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,364
@previous (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
They need tooltips or a little question mark next to each that tells you what it means. I don't know what half of that stuff even means.
They need tooltips or a little question mark next to each that tells you what it means. I don't know what half of that stuff even means.
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,369
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
If you don't even know what they are you could probably just leave them unchecked because you'll probably be uninterested in the type of person who knows what they are and identifies as one
If you don't even know what they are you could probably just leave them unchecked because you'll probably be uninterested in the type of person who knows what they are and identifies as one
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,379
TopShagger !AltRitexT6 joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,380
What a bunch of made up bullshit
Anonymous G replied with this 5 years ago, 39 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,381
TopShagger !AltRitexT6 replied with this 5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,382
dw (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,383
Anonymous G replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,384
blom joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,404
A sexuosecleosexual is a person who is attracted only to atheists who identify as one of the weird genders.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,407
@1,136,312 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
@1,136,323 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But even asexuality no longer has a clear meaning
@1,136,323 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But even asexuality no longer has a clear meaning
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,408
@1,136,347 (dw)
The problem with this is there are probably lots of cute art ho girls who id as gender queer or whatever you’ll be missing if you just pick woman
The problem with this is there are probably lots of cute art ho girls who id as gender queer or whatever you’ll be missing if you just pick woman
Gaz from Lewisham joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 9 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,409
@1,136,380 (TopShagger !AltRitexT6)
> What a bunch of made up bullshit
I reckon you're right Svet mate, it's all just a bunch of meaningless labeling of made-up differences.
Hey Svet mate, how awesome is it gonna be when the Pakis, wogs, kikes, wops, dagos, chinks, spics, krauts, frogs and polacks all fuck off back to Liechtenstein?
> What a bunch of made up bullshit
I reckon you're right Svet mate, it's all just a bunch of meaningless labeling of made-up differences.
Hey Svet mate, how awesome is it gonna be when the Pakis, wogs, kikes, wops, dagos, chinks, spics, krauts, frogs and polacks all fuck off back to Liechtenstein?
dw (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 30 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,410
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,427
@1,136,379 (G)
> Whose fault is that
Gender studies and critical theory for breaking a perfectly workable system. All you need is "I am a [man/woman] seeking a [man/woman]". It looks like there are a lot of different paths to take, but in the end they all lead to that.
> Whose fault is that
Gender studies and critical theory for breaking a perfectly workable system. All you need is "I am a [man/woman] seeking a [man/woman]". It looks like there are a lot of different paths to take, but in the end they all lead to that.
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,447
@1,136,410 (dw)
I recall there was some problem that people with the alternate genders were being filtered out by people filtering for only women
I recall there was some problem that people with the alternate genders were being filtered out by people filtering for only women
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 years ago, 24 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,456
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,459
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,481
dw (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 17 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,487
Anonymous G replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,489
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,491
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 46 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,507
Aceflux just sounds like a portmanteau of acid reflux.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,534
@1,136,487 (dw)
Any kind. You have the right to refuse sex and relationships for any reason. And the reason doesn't have to be explained. A no is enough
Any kind. You have the right to refuse sex and relationships for any reason. And the reason doesn't have to be explained. A no is enough
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,539
sometimes all it takes is unsettling eyebrows
dw (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,549
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,622
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,645
@1,136,549 (dw)
But most want to filter out the profiles of people that they don't want to have sex with
I swear, you act so retarded sometimes
But most want to filter out the profiles of people that they don't want to have sex with
I swear, you act so retarded sometimes
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,646
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
The non binaries said that people weren't ticking them and just going for men or women options and trannies not being included in women option was triggering
The non binaries said that people weren't ticking them and just going for men or women options and trannies not being included in women option was triggering
Anonymous L replied with this 5 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,650
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,657
@1,136,646 (blom)
there's been a market for tranny weirdos for decades, if the "Chicks with Dicks" industry is something to gauge by
there's been a market for tranny weirdos for decades, if the "Chicks with Dicks" industry is something to gauge by
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,677
dw (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,690
@1,136,645 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Yah but you are talking about seeing a tranny in your feed as if it's a human rights infringement lol
Yah but you are talking about seeing a tranny in your feed as if it's a human rights infringement lol
dw (OP) double-posted this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,694
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,699
Anonymous N replied with this 5 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,136,746
@1,136,694 (dw)> Yoir taste in movies is relevant to your general intelligence.
> Durrrrrr.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)