Children's Movies are starting to promote LGBT (Storks, Finding Dory& more)

[StrawberryBlond 14,828]

17 hours ago, Harry said:

I think you're either misremembering the article, misread it or they were misinformed. The meaning wouldn't simply change, let alone to suddenly mean the literal opposite.

Okay that's fine but nothing I said was ever anything to do with asexuals having sex? I'm really not sure why you keep on bringing this up as I've not mentioned this once. This exchange began with me saying: "asexuals can still fall in love" in response to your post where you said that asexuals can't relate to songs or movies about romantic relationships, or can't contribute to conversations about "dream weddings", implying that romance is alien to them - which is incorrect and not what asexuality is. Then in response to that you said point blank that asexuals have "no romantic desire". So it kinda seems like you are/were arguing that? A few posts in you changed your mind and now you're saying they can fall in love so... wyd

Maybe so. Maybe the concept was still pretty new to the article writers and they misunderstood something and it ended up in the final print.

Well, you quoted me pointing out that asexuals can fall in love. So, I responded saying that I believed they could but that I found the definition of asexuality these days to be a bit too flexible, going off on a slight tangent. Basically, when I was referring to asexuals in my original post, I was referring to the ones who are happy on their own and don't want relationships. In hindsight, I should have said that not all of them are this way inclined but I was sticking up for the ones who are, as they tend to feel very alienated by our culture and society. And I never said they had no romantic desire, just no sexual desire. Because you were challenging my definition of the orientation when you quoted me, I thought it was fitting to bring up how I find that the orientation has quite a flexible definition these days. When I said asexual in my original post, I was talking about what I think of when I imagine an asexual - no sexual desire, no urge for romantic relationships. I never changed my mind when I said some could fall in love, I just didn't bring up that subsection who are that way inclined. The only thing that I disagreed with was someone calling themselves asexual despite being partial to a bit of sex occasionally. That's the only flexible definition of the orientation that doesn't sit right with me.

[Harry 26,836]

On 17 January 2017 at 8:09 PM, StrawberryBlond said:

Asexuals, as the name suggests, are people who have no sexual or romantic desire, end of.

Do you see why I'm confused? Because you just stated that you never said they do not have romantic desire, but you quite clearly did say it in this quoted post. Maybe you can see why I'm confused.

[StrawberryBlond 14,828]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Do you see why I'm confused? Because you just stated that you never said they do not have romantic desire, but you quite clearly did say it in this quoted post. Maybe you can see why I'm confused.

Ok, I see what you mean. As I said, I'm just going by the traditional understanding of the term. Its just got very flexible as time has gone on. There are asexuals who have no sexual or romantic desire and those are the ones I was talking about. They're the ones that come to mind when I hear the term. That's all.