I have almost no significant sexual social-mindset associations (or episodic-memory triggers of sexual arousal). My friend retains a significantly greater amount of them.
I have a very minimal level of sexual social-mindset associations surrounding my imprinted partialisms, as I am able to feel more arousal when witnessing episodes of their stimulation than just witnessing them on their own (as a static visual imprint). However, this is roughly where the sexual social-mindset associations stop.
My progressive loss of sexual social-mindset associations are represented by the following:
- Unlike my imprinted partialisms (which I began to be attracted to at around age 5), I only began to be attracted to breasts at around age 11. As a social-mindset association, this decreased from around age 15 until becoming almost absent by around age 19. Notably, I would always hate to see stimuli involving both breasts and my imprinted partialisms together. I would consider them to clash and the feelings elicited by each to be different. At one point, I referred to it as causing ‘disgust and confusion’. In particular, I felt that arousal at breasts consisted of arousal at what others would think of what I was seeing.
- For a short period after around age 11, I was able to enjoy pornographic videos that included a female and a male, i.e. the situation/act could contribute to the arousal by triggering brainstem-response-linked episodic memories. Since around age 14, I have not been able to enjoy any pornographic video that contains a male, i.e. the situation could no longer contribute to the arousal, and since I am not attracted to males, they became a distraction and an impedance in videos. My friend does not have this and can enjoy videos featuring females with males due to the situation/act.
- For a short period at around age 15 (my peak of romantic feelings), I had a mild appeal for traditional forms of non-penetrative sex (such as receipt of fellatio or manual stimulation). The appeal was solely in the context of romantic relationships I’d had in which the partner also had interest in the act. However, this appeal quickly dissipated. I was never able to get significantly aroused by media involving these acts.
The following have always been absent:
- I have never understood use of the words ‘baby’ or ‘babe’ to refer to one’s romantic partner and always found it cringeworthy. The same goes for other slang words related to sex, such as ‘pussy’. My friend does not have this and can enjoy the use of these words.
- I have never been aroused by sex noises. They have also only ever elicited cringe. My friend, however, can be aroused by sex noises.
- Just as I am not able to support or relate to any form of cosmetics, body modification, jewellery or aesthetic clothing style, I have never been able to be aroused by them. My friend, however, is able to be aroused by minimal levels of these features.
- I have never been able to be sexually aroused by fictional content. There is an instance I can remember feeling romantic feelings for a fictional character, which was at age 5, however I have never been able to understand feeling sexual arousal at any fictional content. My friend also does not get aroused by fictional content.
- Virtually all media on imprinted partialisms involve sexual social-mindset associations, such as cosmetics, clothing or situations related to the part. I do not have any of them. Aside from the very minor exception mentioned earlier and a few other former minor ones that decreased after around age 15, my imprinted partialisms have only ever been for the visual anatomy – no typically associated cosmetics, no typically associated clothing, no typically associated situations and nothing related to BDSM.
At age 20, I stated:
‘I can see why oral sex on a boy could result in a net positive for the boy; he would have the feel of the girl’s lips. As for the girl, it must be more of an emotional thing rather than physical, as in, they’re consuming the embodiment of sex of the boy they love in their mouth; same with swallowing semen.
I can only see that coming out of an emotional drive, because there’s nothing physically, erogenously, stimulating for the girl about sucking dick or swallowing cum. It’s not dealing with her sexual areas.’
At age 20, I stated:
‘It’s a bit like the daddy kink.[1] I don’t know why it is a culture where everyone uses the exact same word. Why “daddy”? Why this culture? Why do they have to do that? But just think: in what way is being called a “daddy” cute? Every time [one girlfriend] would say that, I’d say I’m not her father. Why did she have to turn a relationship into something it wasn’t?
Why would one want to think of the biological paternal–child relationship when in a relationship? It made me imagine being my own father and my own father having sex with either me or my sister. Why on earth would a girl want to imagine her own dad having sex with her, replacing her boyfriend with the same cognomen she used for her dad?
And why “daddy” specifically? Because I know not every child called their dad that. Why is that the culture? Why not “dad”? Why not “father” [or “papa” or any other nickname used in many countries of the world]? It doesn’t make sense and, like 1,000s of things, leads me to believe they just adopted it because they saw others doing it. It basically makes everything fall through the floor and is the reason I can’t associate with most people. Things need to have a logical basis.’
At age 20, I stated in a voice message:
‘It’s just so funny to me, imagining someone having feelings for “looking more emo-like” when you’re having feelings for a social trend, for a social concept that didn’t have to look that way, that isn’t present in any other animal in the animal kingdom except humans, having feelings for not a person but a subculture. That’s so alien to me. It’s so absurd.
I only have feelings for a person. I don’t have feelings for subcultures. I don’t have feelings for looks that are adopted from millions of other people who look the same way. I don’t have feelings for that.
To think that it’s possible for people to have that; to think that it’s possible for people to like the “emo look” or like certain looks that are not actual looks of a person. They’re not looks of anatomy; they are looks of whole groups of people. To imagine that, it’s alien.
I mean, what are they actually liking? Like, what are they liking, if they’re not liking a person? Because they’re not. The idea it paints to me is that they’re liking a floating black lipstick, a floating set of black nails, floating dyed hair and a floating bracelet. That’s what I imagine when I imagine them liking that, because they’re not liking a person; they’re liking that specifically.
It’s like, if you subtracted that away and presented them with just a person, they wouldn’t get feelings for it, so the thing they are getting feelings for is that; it’s the cosmetics, the subculture causing them to have those cosmetics. How alien. That just looks so absurd to me. It’s ridiculous.
And it just begs the question of how they see any differentiation between that, between subcultures, because the only differentiation I see is between the individual and the subculture. I can either like subcultures as a whole or an individual.
And why would I like subcultures as a whole? I’m not here on this planet to reproduce with a subculture. I’m here to reproduce with a person. I’m here to relate to a person, not to a subculture. I’m here to love a person, so it’s so absurd to me. I can’t get in their minds at all. I can’t picture having those thoughts whatsoever. It’s so absurd.
And you know, some people would take what I just said and argue, “Well, you can still love the person even if she’s wearing this that or the other, emo stuff, makeup”, but what they fail to understand is this. What they have feelings for is the subculture, of course. When I say I have feelings for the person, I mean I have feelings for the person, just the person.
And just the person is not the subculture; it’s not all of that on top. That detracts from my feelings, because when a person does that to themselves, it means part of the person has been replaced with the subculture, because they’ve obscured themselves, them as a person, and covered it with bracelets, nail polish.
They’ve shown themselves to be less of a person and more of a subculture, less of an individual and more just like millions of other people, such that if I were to choose those other people over them, I would be losing very little. It shows them to be less of a person and more just a nothing.’
References
- ^ "Why Women Like to Call Men 'Daddy' During Sex". Vice. 2016-05-18. (Archive version from 29 September 2020.)