I was told smarter people are more likely to be cursed with things that count as mental illness.

Donald Trump.

Phenac City comes to mind first.

Thanks <3

The modlog, at least when I look at it, only has me banned once.

Anywho, what about the other things.

…which is/are?

For what?

You say all that as if the modlogs themselves don’t clarify, with “oops” being written as the registered reason for the temp-ban, that someone in charge had made a mistake (which you’re claiming credit for as an intended move on your behalf), or that the very thing we’re discussing didn’t have to be blown out of the water by the very person we speak of, especially as a certain point I made (going back to the same replies of mine about the supposed tearfulness) has been proven, as it’s been proven to be a trend everyone else in his camp (who, as experienced politicians, namely ones in the Democratic league, you’d think would just recognize this a part of the process) has been using, which everyone else just wants to be relieved of and look back on with spirits as I’ve been optimistic enough to do for these three days and are growingly fed up with as a far more maladaptive variation threatens to make it hard for people with more genuine issues to be taken seriously. For such reasons, with the horse’s mouth as a source, without breaking the rule of unnecessary downvoting as others are able to get away regarding you as they have to me as a demonstration of its enforcement, would one think it’s out of place that I call double standard regarding the four things I describe just now?

That’s why sexual orientation is often told of as a discovery process. You will hear people mention when they “discovered” when they were this or that. In a society without implied bias, there wouldn’t be any such curveballs though.

A friend of mine who is also in the asexual crowd came from an enormous family and often observed their behaviors and habits and wondered about them, and conversations came up about it. He, being five years older than me, was surprised at the time to have a conversation with a relative of his who adhered to all the incel stuff that physical expression in a relationship wasn’t just a form of social norm rebellion taken up by mischievous coming-of-age individuals and that there was a drive towards people acting out physical expression. The relative, as well as many others then and now, were equally surprised this friend of mine had no outright appetite or even desire for physical expression, instead, like me, preferring company alone.

Legend has it this relative, who made my friend realize he (said friend) was in the asexual crowd, was trying to woo my friend’s would-be lover (who is my other best friend), but in causing my friend to realize he was who he was, led him to revealing to me that I was the same based on me exhibiting the same differences in behavior and habits, and I in turn did the same for the would-be lover, since she happened to be one too (something in the water I guess?), with the would-be lover strengthening her bond with the first friend as a result, since those in the asexual category often find themselves unable to maintain relationships with individuals who thrive on physical expression. This, in turn, was said to erupt the ire of the relative, who, in not understanding what asexuality could possibly entail, put himself at a disadvantage in regards to the friends.

We do vary, yes. But that doesn’t mean someone’s asexual status can’t still be determined, even at a young age. It’s not as if people at young ages haven’t grasped at least a little of their “interests” and how they work… to say someone’s not old enough to know a little of how their interests work requires one forgets about this. There is a difference between being interested in something out of an inclination and because it’s the social expectation, which plays into how people of less represented orientations “discover” who they are. The asexual “nicene creed” or “binding omen” is when you see someone who, when put in circumstances where that physical expression is impossible, such as an abbey or in a prison, doesn’t care whatsoever.

It’s only difficult to understand why someone doesn’t have a certain inclination because of culturally-pushed idea… nobody is saying to those in the depression crowd “I can’t understand why you don’t feel happiness” and nobody is saying to people outside the periodic cramp crowd “I can’t understand why you don’t feel cramps”, but they all are saying to the asexual crowd “I can’t understand why you don’t have this inclination”, which is an irony that’s added onto when those same people say “well it varies, how do you know you’re one” as if they didn’t just allude to circumstances when the inclination isn’t on the table. Even when someone is gay nobody questions it, but for some reason asexuality confuses people? In all due respect, their confusion confuses me.

The reason asexuality isn’t misunderstood that well, I’m guessing, is because there are different forms of it.

Many asexuals don’t get turned on, and these are called non-libidoist asexuals. Many get turned on by people but are asexual because they don’t get turned on by the act of co-pleasure. These are called libidoist asexuals. Some not only don’t get turned on but are averse to what others would consider physical fulfillment.

Unlike other orientations, where it’s typically a fated circumstance, because asexuality pertains to a lack of what it refers to, it’s equally possible to be born with asexuality as well as acquire it later. Someone not born with it could be rendered asexual, for example, through a virus… correct me if I’m wrong but I read somewhere that long covid had a symptom or two like that.

In any category, you can also be asexual and still like companionship (romantic asexuals), or you might not (aromantic asexuals) since companionship is fulfilling another part of us.

Suppose I was facing some kind of Journey to the West type of trial and someone wanted to tempt me, so they bring in some guys who they think are a surefire way to get me to become tempted. It’s not a matter of self-discipline, it simply wouldn’t work as they envisioned. I would walk right through them unaffected. That part of me is to physical temptation what a colorblind person is to color.

Honeymoon rhinitis is a phenomenon where some peoples’ nose gets stuffed up when aroused. It’s similar to people who say they look at bright light and sneeze. If I’m near a crush, I sound like I have the sniffles.

The hawk flies up and perches near me when I’m outside, seemingly just to listen to me and maybe receive some feed.

My Kiwi accent (despite not being in New Zealand), my abnormally dark irises, my teeth (nothing particularly unusual except a few have an odd shape), my honeymoon rhinitis, my distinct snoring when I sleep, my semi-snorty laugh, my uncanny ability to quote my favorite media, my asexuality (supposing someone were to try to tempt me in ways that would tempt anyone else), my talent in cryptography (or rather certain kinds), my art style, and how I elaborately express myself all come to mind.

That depends. The reason the gesture exists is because people in antiquity caught on to the fact a raised middle finger looks like a full wang and balls, and so it became a sign of contempt and later something people could insult each other with. Which is funny because, if my younger self is anything to go by, I’d much rather moon someone. On the one hand, a middle finger carries a storm of testy implications, but on the other hand, it’s not a very elaborated-upon visual. So maybe a three.

One tanuki or raccoon dog that belongs to me, one ringtail/miner cat I help my first mate with, and a hawk that lives in my backyard that likes me.

New Zealand because it has the most going for it in terms of community.

I fittingly listen to the SS Anne one a lot.

Welp, there goes anyone’s claims here of being an authentic political theorist/scholar/analyst.

Perhaps, based on that, the issue is expectations. One expects a certain outcome from how someone is explaining something and is thrown off-guard when it takes a twist. Though that’s not really anyone’s fault. I relate too well to the other perspective, as a non-native speaker who is, in some way, also neurodivergent, as well as a writer immersed in mental exercises. I just have had a kind of faith that one might say it’s a universally trainable skill (think math or jigsaw puzzles) rather than seemingly innate. I may read The Wheel of Time and War and Peace just fine if I don’t establish my own upper limit to complexity. Interactive AI, through their lack of the issue we discuss, implicitly show us that “unintelligible” and “complex” may overlap but don’t necessarily have to.

But that just means its issue is it’s verbally unfamiliar, no?

Makes me wonder how many people read scriptures/manifestos.