Was confused at first because I didn’t remember seeing anything like that on spiderman.
Was confused at first because I didn’t remember seeing anything like that on spiderman.
For example, here’s a protein called “myoglobin”, that carries oxygen within your blood:
Myoglobin is in the muscles. Hemogoblin is in the blood and is essentially 4 myoglobin molecules that can combine into one hemoglobin. IIRC, the combination of the 4 makes it easier to switch between accepting and donating oxygen, where myoglobin is better just at the taking oxygen.
Too bright too. Needs a nerf.
My favorite reposts were the ones that were only like 6 months later, so they’re talking about christmas or r/place as if its that time of year when its the total opposite.
Marriages are partnerships. No masters, no slaves.
Isn’t trad marriage just toned down master-slave relationships?
The IRS says you have to report illegal income and pay taxes on them.
When I was making that kind of money, I still saved way more than 5%. Granted, after inflation, it is like $11.50 now. Still, 10% would have been pretty easy. 20% would be possible if I didn’t blow money on things like spend $3K on a bike for hobby use. Also, that’s assuming you don’t have unexpected expenses. I lived somewhere where having a car wasn’t necessary, so that made a huge different in budgeting. And when I needed surgery, I was lucky with insurance. Otherwise, that could have easily have eaten up the savings I had.
So 15% is definitely possible… with lots of luck and good circumstances.
People with money usually don’t keep it as plain money though. On average, if you just invest it in S&P500 (assuming historical returns), it’ll be worth at least 4 million after adjusting for inflation after 30 years. 3 million dollars reward for having 1 million dollars. But even if you’re like a gold-standard fanatic and just put it in gold, the same applies.
Al capone was arrested for tax evation. I think one of the famous serial killers or mass murderers got caught because they were pulled over for something like speeding (granted, they probably would have been caught eventually anyways, but it happened a lot quicker).
Long-term consequences can be fun if you make it so. /hj
Jesus maybe? At church during the Christmas service. Accidentally dropped it. No clue how much it was worth, but I don’t remember breaking particularly expensive things.
When you’re clients are a handful of companies who will more aggressively change insurers than consumers to save a penny and have their own legal teams, it becomes harder to price gouge or illegally deny claims.
Demisexuality is under the asexuality umbrella, so it should seem relatable.
If you do experience sexual attraction towards those you are close to then that would be demi. If you want to have sex despite lack of sexual attraction, then that would be black-stripe ace.
The food analogy is the comparison I’ve seen people use to explain what sexual attraction is. Hunger is like libido and has little to nothing to do with sexual attraction. Sexual attraction would be like when someone brings out a fresh cake and you need to have a piece even if you just ate and are not hungry. I guess demi in this analogy would mean you wouldn’t feel that way unless you already knew that specific dessert well. But if you just eat tasty desserts when you are bored, because you like the taste but don’t have the mouthwatering reaction to it being presented, because the person who made it is important to you and you feel eating it’s a way to bond with them, etc, you could still be a black-stripe ace.
That said, what counts as sexual attraction has confused me a lot despite spending a fair bit of time reading people trying to explain it.
Anyways, if demi is a functionally useful label, there no need to change. In-practice real-world usefulness of language is more important than weirdos on the Internet trying to be precise in the meanings of words.
Platonic seems fine with me. If you just see sex as another activity to do, like playing board games or TTRPGs, then it makes sense. As hikaru pointed out, the relationship itself wouldn’t be platonic, but the attraction can be.
Granted, I say this as someone who does not engage in sex (and honestly not sure how ace I may or may not be).
This is like saying “yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they’re not attracted to them. They’re still gay! It’s only a name!”
But that’s true. Straight men can and do have sex with men and that should be accepted as normal. Etc. Nothing wrong with that. What would be a problem is if people were to try to pressure people into having sex outside their sexual orientation. Because its wrong to pressure people into having sex. Doesn’t matter their orientation. But you seem to be suggestion that its okay, as long as aces get left out.
It’s an awful precedent. The amount of times I’ve been asked if I’m “one of those asexuals who have sex” is gross.
Some people don’t have boundaries and don’t know basic sexual etiquette. Acknowledging diversity exist no more justifies asking aces you barely know than it justifies asking trans people about their genitals. And yet, somehow people seem to somehow just forget basic etiquette when they meet queer people. As if our existence is either inherently sexual, so simply existing means we started the sexual conversation in their mind (even when we’re aces somehow) or we’re subhuman and don’t desire basic courtesy/privacy. That said, some guys are really just that direct with each other and think its normal.
But there’s no such thing as “grey asexual”. That’s greysexual. It’s a separate thing.
Asexuality is used both a specific label and an umbrella term that includes both.
“Asexual” becoming “inclusive” to almost everything muddies the waters. I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore. It’s frustrating as hell.
Sounds about as valid as transmeds/truscum being upset that NBies and people who want something slightly different than them are under the same umbrella of “trans” and that they would need to use “binary” to qualify more specifically what they want to communicate.
You could be one whether it have sex people with never or often.
If sex is something at least one party desires. No one should be pressured into sex they don’t want, but no one should feel bad leaving another person over the lack of sex either.
Why can’t aces be both? The “sexual” in sexual orientations has always referred to attraction. Sex repulsed aces are like victim-playing US Christians in most of the interactions I see. They bully and make fun of anyone who has sex and then play the victim when asked to not insult others.
Basically.
There are grey-aces (whom are still aces; black-stripe ace sometimes is used to refer to those with no sexual attraction) whom experience some sexual attraction some of the time.
But there’s a lot of aces who are surprised to realize sexual attraction is something people actually experience.
You do hits for $20 and even autograph the victims?