21 years old. College student. Asexual. Androgyne. Creative writer. Activist.

This blog is for keeping images I like and for the periodic Serious Post on topics of asexuality, relationships, love, men, masculinity, etc. hide

The comments on Salon.com’s House/Asexuality article make me hate the world.

People are fucking idiots.

But hey, that’s nothing new.

laughingsquid: Zombie Friendship Necklace Set I wouldn’t want this because it’s zombie-related. I would want this so me and my male partner could wear them, since we’d both be more brain than heart-oriented.
acesecrets:   [Image: A background of the door to 221b Baker Street. Text: “I’m a John, going through life looking for my Sherlock. After a few relationships gone quite badly in the past, I finally realised how much trouble I had defining my sexuality… but now, I believe I can truly understand my feelings. For myself personally, an asexual but homoromantic relationship would be far more romantic than any sexual one. I want to change the world for someone- with someone. The half missing from both of us to complete one another… and I don’t need any sort of sex to do that. I’m so alone, and I know; if I’m lucky enough to find them one day, I will owe them so much.”]
doublenegativemeansyes: no nightmare, …please
“

The most important thing about this series is not that it’s updated, it’s the fact that those two men are still young and they’re still at the beginning of what they don’t yet know is gonna be a life long partnership.

-

Steven Moffat on Sherlock

(via johnhwatson-)
bohemea: Tilda Swinton So fucking great.
fuckyeahgreatfoods: Benedict eggs with smoke salmon
saraeatsbird: outlawroad: leberrachcedes: outlawroad: acesecrets: “As a homoromantic ace,  hate how often romantic friendships are dismissed as “obviously” repressed secret gay relationships. I’m sure a lot of them were, but some were probably also girls like me, and I don’t want my history erased either.” The same goes for male-male romantic friendship. There’s no evidence to prove that they were all or even mostly homosexual in nature, so people who assume all romantic friendships were sexual are making that assumption based on wishful thinking or a narrow-minded comprehension of what’s possible between two people. Romantic friendships in the nineteenth century or in any previous century were happening in a world very different from the one we live in now. Just because a true (nonsexual) romantic friendship is about as rare as a unicorn these days, in the Western world, doesn’t mean that the people of the past were equally as unlikely to engage with each other that way. I dont understand. Whats a romantic friendship? Does it mean being in love with a friend but not acting on it physically or having a touchy feely friendship? A romantic friendship is basically what it sounds like: a friendship with romantic elements to it. The term was coined in the 19th century but variations of this relationship type have existed throughout history all over the world. They usually took place between friends of the same-sex because opposite-sex friendship has usually been off-limits and certainly was in the 19th century, enough that this particular kind of friendship would hardly have been possible between the sexes. Romantic friends often expressed feelings for each other that sound very much like romance but also tended to accentuate the spiritual. They would write sentimental notes and letters to each other, sometimes poems. They engaged in nongenital physical affection, including hugging, cuddling, holding hands, kisses, bed sharing, etc. They frequently expressed the desire to stay together for life but usually, these friendships ends when one or both friends entered marriage. One exception was Boston marriage, which was romantic friendship between two women that resulted in buying a house together and basically becoming life partners. Boston Marriage couples rejected traditional marriage and were usually independently wealthy (which was the only reason why they COULD reject traditional marriage). I think men sometimes opted out of marriage—they had more freedom to do that—but it was rare for them to do that too. Sometimes, romantic friendships continued after one or both friends got married, and there were cases where these romantic friendships were actually more emotionally compelling than the marriage(s). What if you’re having a romantic friendship with someone, and it’s also sexual? What does that make us? …. a romantic-sexual couple. I mean, you may not officially be a couple to your friends or even to each other, but if you have all the romantic elements of a couple relationship going on and you’re having sex, that pretty much sounds like a standard romantic-sexual couple relationship. Unless your feelings are not romantic in the couple sense, even though you have romantic behaviors going on and then…. Then, you’ve got something a bit more complex on an emotional level, even though behaviorally, you’re functioning as a romantic-sexual couple. If you love each other, you’re having sex, and you’re behaving romantically, I don’t think terms like “fuck buddies” or “friends with benefits” (hate that term) applies to you, even if your feelings are not “couple-like” exactly…. Only you can know if your feelings are romantic in the romantic-couple way, but if you have all the elements of a romantic friendship that I’m picturing and you’re having sex (and you’re not having any of this with anyone else and you’d be pissed off if one of you started to have this with someone else), then I think you’re a couple, whether you call yourselves that or not.
leberrachcedes: outlawroad: acesecrets: “As a homoromantic ace,  hate how often romantic friendships are dismissed as “obviously” repressed secret gay relationships. I’m sure a lot of them were, but some were probably also girls like me, and I don’t want my history erased either.” The same goes for male-male romantic friendship. There’s no evidence to prove that they were all or even mostly homosexual in nature, so people who assume all romantic friendships were sexual are making that assumption based on wishful thinking or a narrow-minded comprehension of what’s possible between two people. Romantic friendships in the nineteenth century or in any previous century were happening in a world very different from the one we live in now. Just because a true (nonsexual) romantic friendship is about as rare as a unicorn these days, in the Western world, doesn’t mean that the people of the past were equally as unlikely to engage with each other that way. I dont understand. Whats a romantic friendship? Does it mean being in love with a friend but not acting on it physically or having a touchy feely friendship? A romantic friendship is basically what it sounds like: a friendship with romantic elements to it. The term was coined in the 19th century but variations of this relationship type have existed throughout history all over the world. They usually took place between friends of the same-sex because opposite-sex friendship has usually been off-limits and certainly was in the 19th century, enough that this particular kind of friendship would hardly have been possible between the sexes. Romantic friends often expressed feelings for each other that sound very much like romance but also tended to accentuate the spiritual. They would write sentimental notes and letters to each other, sometimes poems. They engaged in nongenital physical affection, including hugging, cuddling, holding hands, kisses, bed sharing, etc. They frequently expressed the desire to stay together for life but usually, these friendships ends when one or both friends entered marriage. One exception was Boston marriage, which was romantic friendship between two women that resulted in buying a house together and basically becoming life partners. Boston Marriage couples rejected traditional marriage and were usually independently wealthy (which was the only reason why they COULD reject traditional marriage). I think men sometimes opted out of marriage—they had more freedom to do that—but it was rare for them to do that too. Sometimes, romantic friendships continued after one or both friends got married, and there were cases where these romantic friendships were actually more emotionally compelling than the marriage(s).
-androgyny: 0yster: So why is one considered ‘inappropriate’ and the other accepted? Stop sexualising my body.  I wonder this too. Why is it a man’s breast and nipple are okay to show but a woman’s breast and nipple isn’t. Objectification of the human body in media/movies/magazines/etc. is fascinating when you really think about it.