Anonymous asked: I feel like a lot of people don't quite understand asexuality. A lot of people are asking about if I do 'x' am I still asexual? What you do doesn't matter. Asexual just means you don't feel sexual attraction. That's is. It doesn't make you celibate, it doesn't mean you'll never date, and it doesn't mean you have to do or be a certain way. I think that's an important clarification for many people. If you don't know what sexual attraction is, then you're probably asexual.


yeah. No sexual attraction = asexual. that’s literally it.


see terms:
daddy issues
friend zoned
jail bait

see terms:

  • daddy issues
  • friend zoned
  • jail bait

(Source: cheyennekaris, via matzoballpoop)


Anonymous asked: Hi Anagnori! First, thanks for all the great resources; they've been a big help to me! So question: I've been thinking about consent and its various adjectives, and I was wondering if you have any thoughts about "enthusiastic" consent and its relationship to the asexual spectrum? I myself identify as grey-asexual, and I'm sexually active with my (heterosexual) partner; I wouldn't say I'm "enthusiastic" about our sex in any colloquial sense, but I still regard my consent as valid. Thoughts?


I don’t think “enthusiastic consent” should be treated as the only valid form of consent, or that it should be treated as mandatory for sex to be ethically justified.

I’m sex-repulsed. And I rarely get enthusiastic about anything - that’s just my personality. Does this mean I can’t consent to sex? Hell no. I am perfectly capable of saying “yes,” just as I can say “no.” And my “yes” is not less valid just because it doesn’t fit with how allosexual people think I ought to feel during sex. My agency is not diminished just because my natural preferences skew a certain way.

I get that “enthusiastic consent” is supposed to clarify that situations where someone consents reluctantly aren’t really okay. I agree with that. But it also suggests that the only ethical form of sex is that which is highly desired and enjoyable to all people involved, and that’s something I don’t agree with. Because not all people find sex intrinsically desirable. And we should not need to value sex the same way other people value sex, in order for our sexual choices to be considered legitimate.

I’m not really interested in theories of consent that try to “protect” me by denying me the right to consent at all.

Instead of saying how people should feel, I think we should focus on consent as being informed, free from external pressures for or against it, and done when a person is in a state of mind to consent (i.e. no drugging people to take advantage of them; this also rules out children, who can’t consent). And when it comes to “reluctant consent,” I’d rather see more focus on emotional manipulation, and other kinds of behaviors that are used to coerce people into sex, and why these things are wrong - rather than saying the consent ought to be a certain way in order to be valid.



What we need more in media-

Trans characters
poc characters
Desexualized female characters
Mentally Ill characters
Disabled characters
Queer characters
Female protagonists
Bi characters
Pan characters
Asexual characters
Aromantic characters

What we don’t need more of

2 or 3 Cishet white dudes as the protagonists with a bunch of queerbaiting.

(via brasandbodyimage)



Frappe by Mimi Holliday



  • Abusers can do nice things for people they are not abusing.
  • Abusers can do nice things for people that they are abusing.
  • Abusers can otherwise seem like nice, caring, supportive people when they are not actively abusing someone.
  • It does not mean they’re not fucking abusers.

(via beranyth)



Photographed in Columbus, OH on 02/07/14


(Source: policymic, via largelabiaproject)

← Older entries Page 1 of 91