You think that, but you are actually turning the notion of a "fluid" identity into an innate one, as if people couldn't identify with specific merely because they might have a different identity in the future.

But this is literally the opposite of what I am saying. I'm not arguing romantic love without physical attraction love is true for everyone. I'm not suggesting it is universal in anyway.

I don't think the question make sense. The point is the distinction is its own. By identity, it is different to intense friendship.

Which is entirely to miss the point: the distinction is made to talk about the attraction some people have which is separate to physical attraction. You talking about something entirely different, a different idea of "romantic love" which is not separate from physical attraction. You are walking into a room of…

You are actually ignoring the idea of the fluid identity though. Rather than accepting some may go through many definite identities (and, so rightly, vehemently defend each at the time), you are trying to assign someone must have an underlying unknown identity throughout their lives, as if their present identity…

For those who experience sexual attraction as part of romantic love, yes.

This doesn't make though, for if sexuality is not restricted to one label, if it can change, if people discover new things about it and feel differently, redefining one's sexuality as their life progresses would be an expected outcome.

I've seen that too, but then the problem there is the slut-shaming, not the identity of demisexuality itself. To identify oneself as only sexual attracted to people they know well doesn't, itself, claim that is the best and only moral context for anyone to have sex.

Well… it depends. Sometimes there is gender essentialism involves. There are instances where people will argue some things are only for men, while other things are only for women, and since they experience a fluctuating like of both, they must be gender fluid. These people are mistaken insofar as the understand gender…

You aren't eliminating the Other though. You are making anyone who uses particular sort of labels into the Other. Those whose use such labels are, supposedly, the terrible wrong humans who are creating needless and terrible division. So what if someone uses QUILTBAG or Alphabet Soup? Aren't those people human too?

How is it limiting though? Seems to me that you are still expecting labels to define who someone is. What does it matter if she thinks she is a "asexual-T type" and then finds the label does not reflect her at some later date? It is not as if labelling herself as "asexual T-type" prevents the possibility should might…

It also probably doesn't help I was putting a forward a radical challenge to the normative categorisation of sex and gender. I'm sort of asking lots people to think about categorising people in a way they haven't before. I think really need to set the issue out in a wider context of identity and our understanding of…

I always have a raised eyebrow these sort of comments. So labels are so irrelevant, classification is so unimportant and subject to change as people discover more about themselves… that we must drag people over the coals for daring to identify with a label. Seems to me this is caring more about positioning someone…

I feel this is a bit of a red-herring when it comes to consent. Consent is about people, about whether a particular action is the expression of an individual's agency, as opposed to being used by someone else without your expression of self. To enjoy looking at some sort of image doesn't violate consent. It is not as…

I tend to think of those as a lament for a lost love, rather than a dick measuring contest, so long they don't actively assert some other comment section is horrible or worthlessness. Many communities are inevitably "the best" because they important to people who participate in them. Each community is, by definition,…

Worse than that: the part of the Matrix audiences found most interesting (the "get anything you want" power fantasy of saving humanity through the elimination of a threat) were sort of what directors were interested in refuting.

But… that's what makes it a classic in the eyes of its fans.

In this instance: Yes. She is, justifiably, telling to piss off because you are harassing and belittling her or existing as a person who both thinks of others and shares her problems and feelings.

I don't know…we seem to handle people having their individual names (a label) pretty well.

I'm uneasy about objections like this because it based of prescribing an individual must belong to a particular "natural order of humanity." This is not to say some people can't be arseholes about their sexuality being superior (might I, for example, point out plenty of heterosexual people this all the time, yet they…