You know she might be kinda an idiot but Red's design is kinda cute.

So, statistically, what are the odds that every single person on this youtube channel just all happen to all be asexual?

Whatever. Who cares, nobody's going to force you to have sex dude.

erm... yikes, pretty homophobic of you?

You don't need to have sex, though.

>this is just made up nonsense
So is asexuality

sorry homosexual, youre not asexual just because you can’t score, you just can’t score.

I’ll give credence to “asexuality” being a real thing and not simply a medical condition when complete losers stop posting it as a cope and plea for attention. its the same tier as women claiming to be “non-binary”.

My cousin was married to a woman for years before he came out as a gay. Two kids. They divorced and he's married to someone new. To my knowledge, theyre on good terms.

Oh that's where it's from.

>a straight guy wouldn't be in a relationship with another dude in the first place, let alone boink him. same with asexuals, if they're having sex with someone, then they aren't asexual at all.
Straight guys can be turned on by traps though. Presented enough of a "womanly" form, they can still get hard, even if they don't normally get hard to dudes.
Likewise, an asexual person can still have sex, they just don't feel a desires for it and would usually not get into the act. It's performance at that point. The guy that likened it to hunger was on the right track. Asexuality is like if someone literally never had an appetite. But unlike food, sex isn't something required for survival so the asexual person can usually go about without it. But if a partner wants it they could still "oblige".

Then again, all of this probably goes right over your head since as I said you're moronic for thinking
>sexual desire is a vital and intrinsic aspect of romance. any relationship that does not posses this aspect is not romantic at all.
That's the case for YOUR idea of romance. And it's the idea of it for a vast majority of people. I'm assuming you're specifically sperging over Sternberg's model for love, but that is a sociological model/theory, not fact.
It's not a rule and there's plenty of people (even sexual ones) who don't equate the two at all. As you literally stated, there's other aspects of expressing romantic feelings and for others those aspects are all they require, no sex needed.

Hell, actually asexual and polyamorous people still fit just fine into Sternberg's model.
The 3 points are intentionally broad and can cover different ideals within relationships.
>Passion isn't only sexual and is more about any ideas of physical actions and nurturing towards each other, which an asexual person can certainly still desire and do
Shit like just holding hands or chilling on the couch together is enough to count as passion in the model if the person puts value on those as passionate feelings.
>Commitment is about being willing to put in effort to support the relationship in the long term
That's including the added effort for those that'd want to have multiple with non-monogamous relationships. So a poly person can feel their love is full even if it's used on two people.

Then Intimacy is about a shared care for each other's self regard, basically just a deep sense of respect and "liking" which comes out more as a general feeling/vibe towards the person so anyone can really feel it, even possibly someone "aromantic"

My bad for thinking you actually tried to read something outside your worldview.
What you seem to be lacking is an understanding of other perspectives.
>why would they seek out relationships in which sex would inevitably be involved at some point
They would seek it out because they recognize that their view is that of a minority. Sure, probably there's a lot of asexuals that are in relationships with other asexuals and things are fine. But the vast majority of options out there for them as a romantic partner are not asexual.
The asexual person is willing to make due with some obligate sexual interactions depending on their level of asexuality. If they are full on disgusted by it and want no part in it at all, they would probably avoid such relationships even if they desired intimacy. But if they're someone that merely doesn't have any sex drive they may be more open to "going through the motions" of sex to please their partner. Whether the partner would accept that is a whole other side of the coin then.

>all romantic relationships are sexual
This is just an absolute from your worldview, not a fact of the matter. The idea of a "romantic relationship" is entirely subjective and has no absolutes like that. Different people value different aspects when they consider what a romantic relationship would be like. While many do place sexual actions as a high object on there, not all do. An asexual person puts 0 value in it and has a totally different perception of what a romantic relationship should include.

To your last point, as examples of how that idea falls apart you have basically every couple in cartoons that's not explicitly shown fricking or horny. Keeping things Cinemaphile, take PB and Marceline. They have a VERY complex relationship throughout the show and end up together and shown in many romantic and intimate situations, even making out, but it's never explicitly sexual. We don't even really know if they could frick normally with how weird both their anatomies are. Even without that kind of outright confirmation, you can't look at them and say they're not a romantic relationship. They are evidently beyond just the state of friendship and view each other as partners.
Unless you're the type that thinks kissing is a sexual act, but that is another point on a subjective spectrum. Asexual people could certainly still enjoy or want kissing or hugging without considering it a sexual act. To them it is more a sense of intimacy and closeness that is separated from a sex drive/horniness.

You can also take Jinx and Silco from Arcane as corollary. Those two had very "physical" interactions that made many ship them in a romantic or sexual sense, but their love in the show was 100% presented as that of familial love. People projected their equation of close physical touch and romantic feelings when the point was they just were very physically expressive characters that still loved in a familial way.

Honestly the hate for them is probably why they popped into my head first. Second was Lumity. Maybe I'm just too /u/ poisoned.
But the same idea applies no matter the romantic Cinemaphile couple. These cartoons don't usually show any kind of explicit horniness, but the romantic ideas still come through. An asexual person can still relate to such portrayals as the asexual's whole thing is centered on just not having a desire to actually perform sexual acts, not necessarily to avoid all forms of physical contact (though there of course are some asexuals who could be that far out there).

Nta but
>"why are you arguing with logic instead of yelling at me and calling me a homosexual???? This is boring!"

I get that part. What I don't get is the part where you imply asexual people enjoy having promiscuous sex but still label themselves asexual.

Then they're not asexual. They're just normies.

>asexual people enjoy having promiscuous sex but still label themselves asexual.
When have I said they'd enjoy it?
The point is the difference between accepting it out of care for their partner (not their own drive) and those that outright are disgusted by the concept.

>Unless you're the type that thinks kissing is a sexual act, but that is another point on a subjective spectrum.
i don't think your reasoning is very strong on this. Of course, i do not deny that certain acts may be seen as sexual or asexual by certain groups, but that does not change the fact that what is seen as romantic is also what is sexual. take the kissing example you provided for instance. while there is, indeed, many cultures which do not consider such acts sexual, there are those that do, and others which determine it on the style and nature of the act. In the first, kissing is not regulated to lovers alone, but to friends and family likewise. In the second, it is an activity reserved to lovers and lovers alone. in the third, which our own can be categorized as, there are of course circumstances in which it is reserved to romantic relationships due to the sexual undercurrent inherent to a particular fashion of kissing. There is a world of difference between a peck on a cheek and a french-kiss. This is how your example of arcane can be explained. While the creators (frenchmen as i understand it) did not consider the intimacy displayed to be sexual, the viewers did, and not only saw it was sexual, but drew the implication for romance as well. so, while the particular method of displaying romantic love differs between cultures, the kinds that are seen as exclusive to that of romantic love are invariably those that are also considered sexual.

I don't get how you keep hitting the point I'm making and then completely missing it.
Yes, different cultures can view physical touch differently. Many europeans see kissing as not something romantic when in certain contexts. And some see romatnic couples kissing as a sexual thing while others don't.
That's why someone asexual could actually be fine with kissing or even want it but still be asexual: they don't find the act sexual and see it more as a form of intimacy.
Asexuality, at the base definition, is "experiencing no sexual feelings or desires; not feeling sexual attraction to anyone." That doesn't exclude them from doing the act of sex at all, they just don't want or desire it. Some will never do it but others will be fine with doing it based on their partners needs.

>it will inevitably lead to sexual desire regardless. Lovers do not partake in the kind of intimacy i described above merely to appease one another; they do it because that is an important part of how they want for each other.
Again, buddy, that's your worldview. And it's a very narrow one.
You have this strict definition of romantic that you think is THE definition. That this MUST be the way it is. But it's not. Different people have different needs and different views on what a romantic relationship is. For an asexual, that does not include the need for sex. But there may be times when certain asexuals will still engage with a sexual partner to appease their interpretation of romance.
They do it not because of their own sex drive, but because of their love for their partner and empathy towards their sex drive. They do it to make their partner happy even though it is not something they personally desire.

Your insistence on a concrete definition of "romantic relationship" is starting to lean really hard into the stupid "define a woman" stuff.

Perfect definitions are hard. Even yours has obvious holes. You seem to want to imply that sexual attraction is an absolute requirement for defining a romantic relationship.
In that case, I guess Wall-e and Ev-a's relationship isn't "romantic" to you? They're robots, they aren't going to frick. But they clearly do have a deep love for each other throughout the film, with it outright being compared to old romance movies.
Or how about Jack Skellington and Sally. We know nothing about how the monsters frick, or if they even do. Are they in a schrodinger's romantic relationship until we see them boning?
And, of course, with your definition, Slade and Terra's relationship was very romantic, right? I mean they both liked each other and fricked. Manipulation or lacking consent don't matter to this definition.

Now, you could add more caveats to cover issues like this all you want, but that's defeating the purpose here, isn't it? The more you zero in on a specific definition that fits your single worldview the more you're missing the forest for the trees. It's a subjective topic and anyone can have their own definition that's looser than yours that is just as valid.
It's a "you know it when you see it" type deal. And to me, I can see things being romantic between individuals without thinking they have to be fricking eventually.

>They're robots, they aren't going to frick
>We know nothing about how the monsters frick
don't they kiss in both of these instances? That's how you indicate that the love is romantic without it getting overly graphic or indecent. besides that, these two statements are a bit too absurd in of themselves. Of course robots don't have sex. they also don't emotions or the ability to fall in love. And of course monsters aren't even real in the first place. That doesn't mean we can't still project the experience of love, either in part or in whole, onto fictional characters and narratives, just as we can do the same with a million other experiences, such as sentience. Saying that fictional animals can speak is no defense for a redefinition of language, and saying fictional characters can' have sex is not a suitable grounds for redefining romantic love. That's not to say fictional people or circumstances can't be used to argue for it, but rather that it must be used in a more literary fashion rather than relying on technicalities.

>You have this strict definition of romantic that you think is THE definition. That this MUST be the way it is. But it's not.
well quite frankly i haven't seen any other definition which works. You certainly haven't offered any real alternative to the conclusions i've come to. why, you don't seem very willing to define it at all, or at least not in a way that distinguishes from other types of love. Simply put, mine's the only definition presented so far in this discussion which makes sense, and until i see a better definition, i'm sticking to it.

Your insistence on a concrete definition of "romantic relationship" is starting to lean really hard into the stupid "define a woman" stuff.

Perfect definitions are hard. Even yours has obvious holes. You seem to want to imply that sexual attraction is an absolute requirement for defining a romantic relationship.
In that case, I guess Wall-e and Ev-a's relationship isn't "romantic" to you? They're robots, they aren't going to frick. But they clearly do have a deep love for each other throughout the film, with it outright being compared to old romance movies.
Or how about Jack Skellington and Sally. We know nothing about how the monsters frick, or if they even do. Are they in a schrodinger's romantic relationship until we see them boning?
And, of course, with your definition, Slade and Terra's relationship was very romantic, right? I mean they both liked each other and fricked. Manipulation or lacking consent don't matter to this definition.

Now, you could add more caveats to cover issues like this all you want, but that's defeating the purpose here, isn't it? The more you zero in on a specific definition that fits your single worldview the more you're missing the forest for the trees. It's a subjective topic and anyone can have their own definition that's looser than yours that is just as valid.
It's a "you know it when you see it" type deal. And to me, I can see things being romantic between individuals without thinking they have to be fricking eventually.

I agree to a degree, since y'know surely love must exist between people who've lost the ability to have sexual attraction but I feel like using literally nonhuman characters one of which who learned all his concepts of humanity through human media in a kid's movie isn't the best way to argue "romantic love exists regardless of sexual culmination"

Just arrived on the thread, very cool discussion. Figured I'd add my own experience here since I'm comparable being a Aromantic/Bi. (I identify as a prostitute basically)
All the definitions of love and sexual attraction are very arbitrary to me and a few others I've spoken to. I personally experience almost no "love" attraction to want to spend my life or create a life with someone. I still want companionship through friends and close relationships. I still have sex, kiss, and would still cuddle after, but that sense of companionship or "love" isn't something I really want outside of those sexual encounters. There is some overlap for sexual and romantic stuff from my POV, but I'm more doing it for my own sexual fulfillment rather than a romantic aspect.
Hell, I even have a girlfriend at the moment, we started dating before I realized I was Aro, but I don't mind continuing our relationship. I still get my sexual fulfillment and I'm happy to make her happy for the time being. I've made it clear about how I really only see her as a close friend though, and she acknowledges it, knowing I won't spend the rest of my life with her and we'll separate probably in a year or two. She's cool with me never saying "I love you" or things like that since I don't want to lie to her and I'm okay with her saying it since I still enjoy spending time with her even she's the only one getting the feelings out of saying the phrase.

Then what you're saying it because of the overlap, you have to be completely aro/ace or not? What you're saying means that having friends means you do experience love and therefore cannot be aromantic?
To me that's very asinine and limiting as a label. Yeah people all have different forms of love and sexual attraction and actions will have overlap, but you can do things just for one of those feelings and you can do those things while not feeling any of one of them.
I still hang out with people because I'm not anti-social and I enjoy people. We're social creatures. But I am aromantic because I don't have the same love feelings as others. Wanting to get my rocks off and liking when I do it with others isn't the same as being romantically attracted to someone

I'm just going off of what you were saying man. When I said companionship, that's what I was talking about, close friendships with others. I guess that's my bad since that's what I see companionship as, but others will think your lover or partner. That's why I brought up hanging out with others.
If you're saying romance and friendship doesn't mix because it is separate feelings, sexual separate as well, then aren't we on the same page?

>Unless you're the type that thinks kissing is a sexual act, but that is another point on a subjective spectrum.
i don't think your reasoning is very strong on this. Of course, i do not deny that certain acts may be seen as sexual or asexual by certain groups, but that does not change the fact that what is seen as romantic is also what is sexual. take the kissing example you provided for instance. while there is, indeed, many cultures which do not consider such acts sexual, there are those that do, and others which determine it on the style and nature of the act. In the first, kissing is not regulated to lovers alone, but to friends and family likewise. In the second, it is an activity reserved to lovers and lovers alone. in the third, which our own can be categorized as, there are of course circumstances in which it is reserved to romantic relationships due to the sexual undercurrent inherent to a particular fashion of kissing. There is a world of difference between a peck on a cheek and a french-kiss. This is how your example of arcane can be explained. While the creators (frenchmen as i understand it) did not consider the intimacy displayed to be sexual, the viewers did, and not only saw it was sexual, but drew the implication for romance as well. so, while the particular method of displaying romantic love differs between cultures, the kinds that are seen as exclusive to that of romantic love are invariably those that are also considered sexual.

>They have a VERY complex relationship throughout the show and end up together and shown in many romantic and intimate situations, even making out, but it's never explicitly sexual.
Lmao

People are seething? I think she's just got a big fanbase. Rumor has it Blue's swinging hard, but he's also asexual.

If she's under 5'8" by my estimates she might only be D to DD, but I might be thrown off by the chair. Does she ever stand-up?

I think later in the stream but there are some photos out there of her and she looks about 5'5"~5'6" or so.
There's an /aco/ thread about youtubers right now. Go check it out. Lots going on.

>brains
Haha no, she can simply regurgitate information with minimal reinterpretation outside of whatever sexual investment she might have.
>Illiad and Odyssey were filled with gay chars because...THEY JUST WERE OKAY?!

>taking "studies" made to suit an ulterior motive (gay rights) seriously
Kekked

>Rumor has it Blue's swinging hard

Yeah no kidding, I'd be able to sit next to Red for like 6 seconds before going "y'know what I need to have sex right now"

[...]
If that's your big take then she's clearly smarter than you. Also I don't know who you are and I don't care.

How aggressively dismissive of you, seems I tweaked the orbiter's nerve.

>It was illegal so it didn't happen

You've paid for all your cartoons and comics, right?

Are you certain you want to be starting a discussion about something you know nothing about?

Sure. Bring me Plato so I can share it with someone capable of understanding it.

I already made my argument, which the other anon ignored and moved the goalposts and strawmanned me. All he convinced me of is that he's not worth my time.

Yeah I watched her video on grimdark stuff and she clearly doesnt understand the concept

If she's under 5'8" by my estimates she might only be D to DD, but I might be thrown off by the chair. Does she ever stand-up?

He's saying that she's secretly hot.

Red cosplaying as Black Canary.

Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
Both are based
And so are (you)

Red being mistaken as a shape shiften Mestra

Red, Blue, and Cyan are Ashkenazi israelites.

One Piece somehow does both. There are strict rules and there are no fricking rules.

I can't really give you advice since I am not a writer myself. I would suggest looking into what other authors have written about the subject matter. Also the simple answer is that it depends on what kind of story you are writing and if you yourself find the magic system fun.

Sounds cool. Go for it. If you are having fun writing and you feel like you are writing something that you yourself would read, continue doing it.

Twitter people love Harry Potter for its escapism, magical disposition and characters. I loved Harry Potter because I got to read about the one school shitter than the one I was going to, where studens were constnaly forced into mortal peril. We are not the same.

Twitter people love Harry Potter for its escapism, magical disposition and characters. I loved Harry Potter because I got to read about the one school shitter than the one I was going to, where studens were constnaly forced into mortal peril. We are not the same.

[...]
I disliked Harry Potter because of its shit worldbuilding

normalgay meme

I don't really buy that though, if someone is the type of author that completely disregards any kind of internal consistency or sense in favor of 'anything goes, as long as it's more convenient for me', I imagine that person is also quite bad at telling a story too. It isn't a simple matter of worldbuilding vs storytelling like you're making it out to be, someone who's playing this fast and loose with rules and such probably can't write a very compelling story.
Hell, just look at Steven Universe, that show was insanely loose with it's rules and consistency on what characters could and couldn't do and were and weren't capable of for the sake of 'telling the story', and people shat on it all the time. Even people who like SU admit it wasn't really the best at storytelling.

I don't really feel like wasting my time, no.

Here's an idea, how about YOU talk to her if you don't like it?

I really don't give a shit chief. I was just pointing out one issue of many in that list, and there is LOT of things wrong with it that others have pointed out

I don't know man, hes just sort of annoying. Him, Sakura, and Sasuke. I tried watching them when they came out, I tried watching them in the 2010s, I even tried five years ago. Squat. Nada.

Red cosplaying as Black Canary.

>Black Canary
>Leotard and jacket
Yeah I think I can do that. If I don't post it here(or if the thread gets pruned) check the /aco/ thread.

Maybe its just me. I'm not a fan of modern anime. Stuff that I barely remember, stuff I grew up with, from the mid 1990s up into the early 2000s, thats what I liked.

I actually didn't watch Bleach, that was my sister's thing. What I read to a great extent was Tenchi Muyo, Zoids, and Ghost in the Shell.
Thank you, school library.

I don't recall but I was a big fan of the show.

Agreed. And I love tvtropes. Proiblem is, I could just be, you know, reading tvtropes on my own. Meanwhile I've tried reading the Illiad from an accurate translation, it fricking sucks.

[...]
These are all bad but I've a soft spot for Tenchi Muyo.

Tenchi Muyo. Lovely stuff. Ghost in the Shell. Good stuff.

Naruto's pretty entry tier and falls of a fricking cliff after like 3 arcs. Have you tried any other popular shonen?

>Still hate how its bad habits ended up poisoning MHA and causing it to fall off a cliff in synergy.
Last time I checked Bakugou is currently dead I'm the ditch and didn't take over the focus of the story and all the characters are getting their momentsto shine, there's no last minute asspulls to revive formerly dead characters to use in a zombie army, the cast are fighting the same villains introduced in the beginning so there's not a last minute final boss and the series is still about Deku and All Might not his gay rivalry.

>Bakugo's being revived so he can get back in the fight once AFO and Shigaraki fuse
He's still dead. He hasn't done anything in a year. Them trying to save him isn't the same as him being revival

>There's still a bunch of absolutions and redemptions for characters that really shouldn't get them (Endeavor, Toga, Shigaraki),
Yeah frick off twitter troony. Endeavor is a fantastic character and his arc isn't about redemption neither is Toga and Shiggy

I'm not a troony. I like Endeavor as a dad who fricked up beyond redemption but still keeps doing his job, but I don't want him forgiven like Gaara's dad and Nagisa's mom were. It shouldn't be him who gets to be the one to defeat Dabi, it should be Shoto.
Also hated how he ends up the one to defeat Gigantomachia and undercut all of Momo and Kirishima's efforts.

Not that anon but god I hate how edgy and up it's own ass that series got. The creator really doesn't get that his main demographic is teenage girls.

Not intentionally but yeah the reason why it was so popular like 5 years ago was because it was really big with teen girls, especially over here in the states.

>The creator really doesn't get that his main demographic is teenage girls.
That's Jujutsu Kaisen

>Like with Juju there's due to it's over all tone being fairly consistent the fan base reflects what the series is trying to do
Most of them don't give a shit about anything outside gayships and the majority are there because it's trendy.

>basically dominated by people just talking about school shit and teenage high jinks.
Because it's literally about that. It's called My Hero ACADEMIA for a reason

>Because it's literally about that. It's called My Hero ACADEMIA for a reason
Yeah and the last few years had basically nothing to do with the Academia. At this point the series is basically completely different than what the fan base actually wants in the show, that's why the series has basically fallen off. Juju has always been on a core level edgy so the fan base is retained much more easily.

You mean the franchise whose fandom went into hibernation for multiple years and then only came back once the series was rapping up. Also the over all tone of AoT stayed much more consistent than MHA

>At this point the series is basically completely different than what the fan base actually wants in the show
Wasn't what the fanbase wanted for Deku to go completely quirkless and become Batman or Iron Man?

That would have still been stupid, if anything Deku should have remained just a beat stick super strength user and can only use his full potential with the help of character like Ochako.

It still exists, and even says it can be used on YMMV pages, but I assume nobody uses it because it's both an inherently negative trope and the people who want to use it get quarantined to their one time rant on DMOS.

God, I miss Wall Banger. The Naruto page was miles long and was a categorized list of every time an Uchiha did something bullshit.

A laundry list beset by the Equal Time Rule from the Fifties and Sixties.

>gf speaks like koseki bijou
You're a saint, I'd strangle her after a week

So what does it mean to be 'romantic'? What exactly is a romantic relationship?