Okay, I’ve been getting a little frustrated by this going round and round so here’s Yasmin Benoit from an article in Cosmopolitan talking about the term sex-repulsed. Like many things, it can have more than one meaning. The article acknowledges both the idea of a trauma response and disgust and also the idea of indifference as being covered by the term. It’s fine to say that maybe a new term should be invented to cover the pure lack of interest side of things, but incorrect to argue that such a definition doesn’t already exist.
Hi I’m this anon. People in notes and reblogs are still missing the point. There have been people identifying themselves in your anons as “sex repulsed” who clearly don’t have like a fear of, trigger-esque strong aversion to sex. That’s what the term actually means.
I should’ve been clearer. It’s not even just indifference, but if you just find it gross and weird but you aren’t like, triggered by it or something similar, that’s not repulsion and that shouldn’t be the word used for it because “sex repulsion” already has a definition, and conflating those things with it unnecessarily stigmatizes/pathologizes them
💜BTS is/in Art💜
This is so me. I miss Hobi.
ART USED: The Artist’s Studio, Charles Napier Kennedy (1898)
*******
Charles Napier Kennedy (1852-1898) was a British artist renowned for his mythological paintings and portrait paintings.
Here is some more work from the artist:
https://www.artnet.com/artists/charles-napier-kennedy/
An interesting demonstration of how the human brain works.
But also something of a lesson regarding perception, and the unreliability of subjective perspective versus objective reality.
You can be extremely certain about how you perceive the world, your "lived experience," that which you "feel it in my heart." But that doesn't mean it's actually true. And it doesn't mean we have to endorse it, or ignore or outright deny objective reality.