links.mimuki.net

Some really interesting perspectives in this thread.

Asexual people have been near-universally the kinkiest suckers I have ever met. Focusing less on physical attraction to bodies and more on the subjects and actions surrounding the concept of sex would do that to you.

Where have I heard this before...

Charmingly dated site, besides some characterizations of autism that are...not the best.

Possibly one of my favourite aspects of e621 is that it is overwhelmingly known for the porn, but a significant amount of the stuff there isn't porn.

SHIPS | Sexual Health & Intimacy Psychological Services - We are a progressive psychology practice in Fitzroy, Melbourne. LGBTQIA+ friendly.

"The youths are hooning around in their cars, copying what they see in action movies and getting killed. This is bad."

"We could work on educating vulnerable demographics so that they understand what's being shown is extremely high-risk and not a good representation of reality... or we could ban action movies for everyone."

"I do quite like the sound of that last one, Minister."

In short, in the context of sex:

M:

• Not recommended for under 15s, no legal restrictions
• Sexual activity may be "discreetly implied, if justified by context"

MA:

• Considered unsuitable for under 15s, with legal restrictions
  • I definitely bought MA video games as a teen without issue (though sometimes I did need my dad there)
• Sexual activity may be implied
• Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context

R:

• Considered unsuitable for under 18s, with legal restrictions
• Sexual activity may be simulated (i.e. the actors are not actually having sex)
• Sexual violence may be implied

X:

• Exclusively used for consensual sexual material (but nonsexual, high impact films can be R or RC)
• Illegal to possess in some parts of the NT (maybe? I think that law automatically sunset a few years ago and wasn't replaced?)
• Illegal to sell, rent, or exhibit in all states (but not the territories)
  • Thanks to the constitution, an ACT/NT store can knowingly sell to someone in other states and that's OK
• Sexual activity may be depicted, unless...
  • depictions of violence, sexual violence, sexualized violence, coercion, or sexually assaultive language is present
  • that includes consensual depictions which "purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers"
  • body piercing, "application of substances such as candle wax", "golden showers", bondage, spanking, or fisting are depicted
    • Why is this list so specific?
  • the actors are 18+ but look like minors, or are being depicted as minors

RC: (Refused Classification)

• Anything that fails the above restrictions, but also:
  • "activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent"
  • "incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent"
    • Why pretend-incest is singled out here but not in the exclusions of X ratings is beyond me.
• Broadcasting or selling this, or anything that would be RC if they tried to get it classified, is illegal (for the person selling/broadcasting)
  • I am fairly sure consuming or possessing it is not inherently illegal, unless you're in a juristiction where X-rated content is illegal to possess

See also:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2005L01284/latest/text

I already knew our porn laws were not great, but this, if true, is a whole other level of bullshit.

Official response:

Article contains scantily clad women in provocative poses, and some closeups of vulvas.

The time I've spent musing on the whole "people you're having sex with generally expect that you find them sexy" thing, and pondering if I find people sexy in the first place... makes this infinitely funnier to me.

The classic "women plus [implied to be AFAB] notwomen I guess" framing, but useful and educational regardless

Only when I started reading more broadly about different kinds of bonds and decentralizing romance, about how deeply romance-centered our culture is, did I begin to understand that what I wanted was not romance at all.

I am a loving person. I form deep, committed friendships. I crave emotional and intellectual intimacy. I can admire people the way I admire a painting or an intriguing book cover, aesthetically, intellectually, with curiosity and warmth. This kind of looking isn’t pursuit but attention without possession, closeness without claim, something our language rarely makes room for.

But the gravitational pull everyone described, the merging of lives around a romantic feeling, did not happen. And I certainly didn’t want anyone in my bed. What I wanted was connection, and society taught me I could only truly find it in romance.

Particularly the book recommendations on compulsory sexuality seem interesting.

In short:

• Sexual arousal refers to the set of automatic physiological reactions, with no defined direction or cause, and with variable frequency and intensity.
• Sexual desire is the intentionality or impulse to engage in sexual activity, either with oneself or with another person. [...] Desire appears after arousal.
• And finally, sexual attraction is the focus or direction of desire: the concreteness of desire toward a specific person who sparks interest or with whom one wants to engage in sexual activity.

Sexual attachment, on the other hand, can be defined as the development or strengthening of a bond between two people after sexual activity, caused, among other things, by hormonal interaction and the neurological and psychological adjustments this entails. Sexual attachment will strengthen if the experience is repeated between the same people and, to some extent, will create emotional dependency.

That is to say an asexual person could develop sexual attachment toward their partner—if they have sex recurrently, of course—despite having no attraction, no sexual desire or even no sexual arousal.

In my particular case, as I have already mentioned, I do experience sexual arousal occasionally; but once out of the relationship, I realized that my sexual desire and my "sexual attraction", upon returning to their natural state, so to speak, became practically nonexistent or diffuse.

The relevance of this model lies in a particularly suggestive idea: romance may not be an autonomous form of intimacy, but rather a cultural narrative built from several combined intimacies.

From this perspective, what we call “romance” ceases to be a fixed essence and becomes instead a particular relational configuration among many others.

[...]

In [queerplatonic] relationships, what matters is not necessarily romance or sexuality, but the structural quality of the bond itself: mutual care, deep intimacy, emotional continuity, shared meaning-making, and sustained presence in one another’s lives.

Rather than rejecting romance outright, queerplatonic relationships seem to question the assumption that every profound bond must necessarily be organized around the classical romantic model.

Articles I did not expect to have a BSDM section: this one

Articles I probably could have inferred could have a BDSM section: also this one