Laurel Thatcher Ulrich once said that “Well-behaved women seldom make history,” and those words have been printed on paper and typed onto the internet millions of time ever since. Although it’s easy to take the phrase to mean mostly whatever you want, in truth, these words are meant to celebrate women who make the world, in general, a better place, largely by being bolder and more creative than most other people. Read the following list to find out just how badass alpha-women really are, and to find out just how amazing they are.
Bandung, 17 Juli 2017
Hi readers, setelah sebelumnya saya share tentang Memetics, sekarang saya mau share tentang Simulacra. Istilah dan teori Simulacra ini dilontarkan oleh seorang tokoh besar cultural-studies bernama Jean Baudrillard.
Dalam hal simulasi, manusia mendiami suatu realitas, di mana perbedaan antara yang real (nyata) dan fantasi, antara asli dan palsu sangatlah tipis. Dunia-dunia tersebut dapat diibaratkan seperti disneyland, universal studio, china town, las vegas atau beverly hills. Lewat media informasi, seperti iklan, televisi, dan film dunia simulasi tampil sempurna. Dunia simulasi itulah yang kemudian dapat dikatakan tidak lagi peduli dengan realitas atau kategori-kategori nyata, semu, benar, salah, referensi, representasi, fakta, citra, produksi atau reproduksi melebur menjadi satu dalam silang tanda. Di samping itu, tidak dapat lagi dikenal mana yang asli dan mana yang palsu. Semua itu pada akhirnya menjadi bagian realitas yang di jalani dan dihidupi masyarakat saat ini. Kesatuan inilah yang kemudian oleh Baudrilard disebut sebagai simulacra, yaitu sebuah dunia yang terbangun dari bercampurnya antara nilai, fakta, tanda, citra, dan kode.
Dengan demikian simulacra adalah suatu kebohongan berupa tanda, atau image yang dibangun seseorang yang memiliki sifat pada kontennya yang jauh dari realitas asli orang tersebut.
Contoh: misal saja ada seseorang yang dalam realitas hidupnya berdosa dan kurang bermoral, namun melalui akun pribadinya di sosial media, dia bisa saja memposting hal-hal yang religious mulai dari gambar hingga ayat-ayat suci. Dalam hal ini orang tersebut sedang melakukan suatu simulasi yang berbeda dengan realitas dirinya yang asli. Inilah yang disebut dengan simulacra.
Dalam buku yang berjudul “Galaksi Simulakra: Esai-Esai Jean Baudrillard” yang ditulis oleh M. Imam Aziz, Aziz mengatakan bahwa Iklan telah mengambil alih tanggung jawab moral bagi semua masyarakat dan menggantikan moralitas puritan dengan moralitas hedonis kepuasan murni, seperti suatu keadaan alam baru di jantung yang kita miliki dalam hiperperadaban. Kebebasan yang kita miliki dalam hiperperadaban sepenuhnya dibatasi oleh sistem komoditas: “Bebas untuk menjadi diri sendiri” ternyata berarti bebas untuk mengarahkan hasrat pribadi pada barang-barang yang diproduksi. “Bebas untuk menikmati hidup” berarti bebas untuk mundur dan bersikap irasional, dan kemudian menerima suatu organisasi sosial produksi tertentu.
Kalimat “bebas menjadi diri sendiri” yang disebut diatas bukan berarti bebas menjadi diri apa adanya (real), tetapi setiap individu bebas menciptakan diri yang seperti apa yang dia inginkan untuk dilihat orang lain di sosial media. Jika setiap orang melakukan simulasi ini, lantas siapa yang jujur menunjukkan diri aslinya. Bahkan saat seseorang membangun image yang sederhana, ramah, dan baik hatipun mungkin saja itu juga merupakan simulasi.
Orang-orang modern dikelompokkan menurut komoditas yang mereka miliki. Konsumsi merupakan suatu tindakan sistematik dari manipulasi tanda-tanda, yang menandai status sosial melalui pembedaan. Konsumsi menentukan status sosial seseorang melalui objek-objek, setiap pribadi dan kelompok mencari tempatnya dalam suatu aturan, sejenak kemudian mencoba untuk mendesak-desak aturan ini menurut lintasan pribadi.
Dalam Simulacra, ada istilah yang disebut dengan Hyperreal, di mana hyperreal ini merepresentasi fase-fase yang lebih berkembang dalam pengertian bahwa pertentangan antara yang nyata dan yang imajiner ini dihapuskan. Yang tak nyata bukan lagi mimpi atau fantasi, tentang, yang melebihi atau yang di dalam, melainkan kemiripan halusinasi dari yang nyata dengan dirinya sendiri.
Dalam hal ini, ada 3 istilah yang saling terkait; yaitu simulasi, simulacra, dan hiperrealitas. Simulasi berarti tiruan. Maksudnya adalah realitas tiruan yang masih mengacu pada realitas yang sesungguhnya. Sedangkan kedua, Simulacra. Baudrillard mengartikannya dengan realitas tiruan yang tidak lagi mengacu pada realitas sesungguhnya. Artinya realitas sesungguhnya sudah dibelokkan yang kemudian benar-benar ditutup dari acuannya. Akan tetapi, realitas ini belum sepenuhnya sempurna dikatakan sebagai sebuah realitas yang benar-benar real. Karena, hubungan timbal baik/ interaktif belum terjadi. Atau kita bisa menyebutnya sebagai semi-realitas.
Nah, yang ketiga adalah Hiperrealitas. Inilah yang disebut sebagai realitas yang benar-benar real, bahkan di atas yang real, yang nantinya akan menggantikan realitas yang real sebelumnya. Artinya, Hiperrealitas adalah sebuah dekonstruksi dari realitas real sebelumnya, karena realitas ini akan sangat benar-benar berbeda dari sebelumnya. Atau dalam bukunya Yasraf Amir Pilliang yang berjudul Dunia Yang Dilipat, Hiperrealitas (Hyper-reality) dijelaskan oleh Baudrillard sebagai, keadaan runtuhnya realitas, karena telah diambil alih oleh rekayasa virtual yang dianggap lebih nyata dari realitas itu sendiri, sehingga perbedaan keduanya menjadi kabur. Sedangkan perbedaan antara fase simulacra dengan fase hiperrealitas, terletak pada cirinya yang interaktivis. Yakni, hal-hal yang tadinya hanya dapat dilakukan dalam realitas real, kini telah tergantikan dalam realitas virtual, seperti berinteraksi, transaksi ekonomi, rapat, belajar dsb. Bahkan, lebih efektif dan efisien cara-cara yang baru ini. sedangkan dalam fase simulasi maupun fase simulacra belum terjadi hal-hal seperti ini.
Dalam buku Media Sosial: Perspektif Komunikasi, Budaya, dan Sosioteknologi, Nasrullah menulis bahwa Baudrillard mengungkapkan gagasan simulasi bahwa kesadaran akan yang real di benak khalayak semakin berkurang dan tergantikan dengan realitas semu. Kondisi ini disebabkan oleh imaji yang disajikan media secara terus menerus. Khalayak seolah-olah tidak bisa membedakan antara yang nyata dan yang ada di layar. Khalayak seolah-olah berada di antara realitas dan ilusi sebab tanda yang ada di media sepertinya telah terputus dari realitas.
Term simulakra digunakan Baudrillard untuk menggambarkan bagaimana realitas yang ada di media adalah ilusi, bukan cerminan dari realitas, sebuah penandaan yang tidak lagi mewakili tanda awal, tetapi sudah menjadi tanda baru. Baudrillard menyebutnya sebagai “a copy of a copy with no original“. Di media sosial interaksi yang terjadi adalah simulasi dan terkadang berbeda sama sekali. Misalnya, di media sosial identitas menjadi cair dan bisa berubah-ubah. Perangkat di media sosial memungkinkan siapapun untuk menjadi siapa saja, bahkan bisa menjadi pengguna yang berbeda sekali dengan realitasnya, seperti pertukaran identitas jenis kelamin, hubungan perkawinan, sampai pada foto profil.
Term ini terjadi melalui 4 tahap proses:
- Tanda (sign) merupakan presentasi realitas.
- Tanda mendistorsi realitas
- Realitas semakin kabur, bahkan hilang, malah tanda merupakan representasi dari representasi itu sendiri.
- Tanda bukan lagi berhubungan dengan realitas. Imaji telah menjadi pengganti dari realitas itu sendiri.
Contoh: saya memiliki pengalaman berkenalan dengan seorang pria yang sangat genius dalam bidang seni rupa, semua gambar hasil karyanya yang di post olehnya di sosial media sangatlah indah dan bagus, namun ada yang membuat saya curiga dan penasaran. Kebanyakan gambar-gambarnya mengandung unsur nudity, sex, wanita sexy, dan lain sebagainya yang berkaitan dengan hal-hal tersebut. Saat saya melihat semua gambar-gambar itu ada dua hipotesa yang ada di pikiran saya. Yang pertama, mungkin saja dia tidak pernah mengenal sex atau tidak pernah menyentuh tubuh wanita sehingga dia berimajinasi dan menuangkannya pada karya-karyanya. Yang kedua, mungkin saja dia orang yang senang berhubungan sex dan menyukai pornografi dan dia terang-terangan membagikan hasil karyanya tersebut pada sosial media. Singkat cerita hubungan kami semakin dekat dan saya jatuh cinta kepadanya. Hingga saya menemukan banyak hal-hal yang aneh yang jauh dari estimasi awal saya sebelumnya. Kesimpulan singkatnya, “ternyata dia adalah pelaku simulakra“. Dia melakukan simulasi dengan membangun image sebagai laki-laki jantan (yang menyukai sex) di sosial media, sementara di dunia real dia sama sekali tidak pernah dekat dengan wanita, bahkan dia sangat dingin. Awalnya saya curiga mungkin saja dia impoten atau tidak menyukai lawan jenis, sampai saya akhirnya berkesimpulan bahwa dia adalah seorang Asexual Aromantic (bisa dilihat di post blog saya sebelumnya). Selain image dari hasil karyanya tersebut, dia juga melakukan simulasi lain seperti memamerkan saya sebagai pasangannya dan seringkali comment kalimat-kalimat yang seakan romantis atau seakan dia peduli pada saya, sementara di dunia real dia bahkan tidak pernah berkomunikasi intens dengan saya. Dua bulan sejak kami kenal dan dekat saya terus menganalisa dia, dan akhirnya saya menemukan bahwa dia melakukan kebohongan citra/image yang dia bangun hanya untuk dilihat oleh teman-teman di sosial medianya. Ini sangat mengecewakan karena ternyata saya telah menjalin hubungan dengan seorang penipu citra. ^_^
Nah, jika simulasi yang dibuatnya di sosial media membuat orang yang melihatnya yakin dan percaya bahwa yang ditampilkan di sosial media adalah real, maka orang-orang tersebut dianggap telah terjebak dalam dunia simulacra; padahal konten-konten yang ditampilkan bersifat semu dan jauh dari realitas aslinya.
Inilah yang terjadi dalam cyberspace di mana proses simulasi itu terjadi dan perkembangan teknologi komunikasi serta kemunculan media baru menyebabkan individu semakin menjauhkan realitas, menciptakan sebuah dunia baru, yaitu dunia virtual.
Menurut Baudrillard, realitas terkadang sudah tidak memiliki kesamaan dengan apa yang direpresentasikan. Teknologi dan media memiliki kekuatan tidak hanya untuk melakukan produksi, tetapi juga mereproduksi tanda (signs) dan objek (objects).
Untuk menjelaskan bagaimana konsep simulakra ini terjadi di media sosial, Tim Jordan mengatakan, ketika berinteraksi dengan pengguna lain melalui antarmuka (interface) di media sosial, pengguna harus melalui 2 kondisi berikut:
- Pengguna harus melakukan koneksi untuk berada di ruang siber. Koneksi ini merupakan prosedur standar yang harus dilakukan oleh semua pengguna ketika memanfaatkan media sosial.
- Ketika berada di media sosial, penguna kadang melibatkan keterbukaan dalam identitas diri sekaligus mengarahkan bagaimana individu tersebut mengidentifikasikan atau mengonstruk dirinya di dunia virtual.
Dalam dunia simulasi berlaku hukum simulacra, yaitu “daur ulang atau reproduksi objek dan peristiwa”. Objek atau peristiwa itu diperagakan seakan sama atau mencerminkan realitas aslinya, tetapi sesungguhnya maya. Sulit memperkirakan hal-hal yang nyata dari hal-hal yang menyimulasikan yang nyata itu.
Baudrillard memberi contoh media massa. Media lebih banyak menampilkan dunia simulasi yang bercorak hiperrealitas, suatu kenyataan yang dibangun oleh media tetapi seolah benar-benar realitas. Media tidak lagi mencerminkan realitas, bahkan menjadi realitas itu sendiri. Saksikan dengan seksama bagaimana media mendramatisasi peristiwa, jika suka atau tidak suka. Semua ada narasi simulasinya. Dia menyebutnya sebagai “cyberblitz“.
Realitas yang ditampilkan tampak benar dan objektif, tetapi sebuah kebenaran dan objektivitas yang dikonstruksi sesuai selera para aktor yang berkepentingan.
Sebenarnya pengertian simulakra tidak sesempit dan sesederhana itu, kita yang menganggap diri jujur, benar, dan apa adanya pun masih saja terjebak dalam dunia simulacra. Kejujuran yang kita post apa adanya sesuai pemikiran dan perasaan kita di sosial mediapun kerapkali dianggap pencitraan, pembentukan image, dan lain sebagainya. Ini dikarenakan masyarakat telah terbiasa melakukan simulasi, sehingga mereka menganggap kita melakukan simulasi yang sama. Sehingga semua yang buruk bisa menjadi baik saat disimulasi, dan semua yang baik menjadi buruk karena dipaksa untuk melakukan simulasi, dan lain sebagainya.
Selain itu, simulakra dalam kaitannya dengan hiperrealitas terjadi karena gencatan yang terpaksa harus dilakukan oleh sebagian khalayak yang psikisnya telah terpapar oleh teknologi media. Misal dengan adanya fasilitas “follow“, “like“, “love“, dan lain sebagainya tersebut membuat khalayak berlomba-lomba membuat simulasi yang terbaik untuk mencitrakan dirinya atau untuk membuat image yang disukai masyarakat, di mana hal tersebut telah dibuat jauh dari karakter realnya. Seakan merupakan kebanggaan pribadi saat seseorang memiliki followers terbanyak atau mendapatkan likes terbanyak. Fasilitas ini tidak hanya mempengaruhi psikis seseorang, tetapi juga memengaruhi kualitas emosi orang tersebut. Tidak sedikit orang yang sebal, kesal, dan iri jika orang lain memliki lebih banyak followers dibandingkan dirinya. Perasaan seperti ini adalah perasaan simulakrum. Suatu emosi yang terjebak pada dunia imitasi. Mereka marah karena dunia imitasinya tidak lebih baik dari dunia imitasi orang lain.
Sampai disini dulu yah penjelasan saya tentang simulacra. Semoga bermanfaat… ^_^
Naomi Indah Sari
Aziz, M. Imam. 2001. Galaksi Simulakra: Esai-Esai Jean Baudrillard. Yogyakarta: LKiS
Nasrullah, Rulli. 2015. Media Sosial: Perspektif Komunikasi, Budaya, dan Sosioteknologi. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Hidayat, Medhy Aginta. 2012. Menggugat Modernisme: Mengenali Rentang Pemikiran Postmodernisme Jean Baudrillard. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra.
You also can follow my instagram:
or add me as friend on facebook:
Naomi Indah Sari
Bandung, June 20th 2017
on my last blog I wrote about Asexuality, now I’m sharing you about “Aromantic”. Asexuality and Aromantic are different but could be related. Someone who is asexual, maybe not aromantic, but someone who is asexual also could be aromantic. Or someone who is aromantic, maybe not asexual, but someone who is aromantic, could be asexual as well.
Why is this possible to be both? Because as we know from the blog before that Asexuality is someone who doesn’t experience sexual attraction with anybody, and “Aromantic” is someone who doesn’t experience romantic attraction. So, that’s why someone who has no interest for romantic attraction could be not interest for sexual attraction, but it could be no interest for romantic attraction, but interest in sexual attraction. If someone is identified as asexual and aromantic, they are called “ace-aro”.
These are some definitions about Aromantic:
- A person who is aromantic does not experience romantic attraction. A person who is aromantic does not have to be asexual (a person who does not experience sexualitet attraction), and they might still experience sensual and aesthetic attraction. Example: Sarah is an aromantic bisexual. She feels sexual attraction to two genders, but does not feel romantic attraction.
- One who lacks interest in or desire for romantic relationships.
- Not experiencing romantic attraction. Not the same as being asexual, which means experiencing no sexual attraction. Aromantics can still be in a romantic relationship, they just do not experience an attraction towards their parter.
- Not attracted to anyone in any way. Used by asexuals to differentiate themselves from asexuals who are attracted to people in romantic, but not sexual ways.
- To have no romantic attraction, not to be asexual, which is no sexual attraction. An aromantic person is not nessicarily asexual. Example: Guy: “Why did José have sex with me but not call me back?”, Girl: (*shrugs*) “Maybe he’s aromantic…?”
- A person who finds other people to be sexually attractive, but has no romantic feeling toward them.
- Someone who doesn’t fall in love or loves.
Well readers, by reading those definitions I bet you understand now what aromantic is all about.
The aromantic spectrum
Alloromantic people experience frequent attraction. Everyone else can be considered part of the aromantic (aro) spectrum. This includes aromantic, gray-romantic, lithromantic/akoiromantic, wtfromantic/quoiromantic, and other non-alloromantic orientations. People on the aromantic spectrum experience romantic attraction less frequently, weakly, or in some fundamentally different way than alloromantic people.
Variations of gray-romantic are gray-aromantic, grayromantic, and swapping “gray” for “grey”. The definition of gray-romantic varies. One definition is infrequent attraction; gray-romantic people may only be romantically attracted to a couple or even one person in their lifetime. Another definition is between aromantic and alloromantic. Gray-romantic is sometimes used as an umbrella term for all non-aro, non-allo orientations.
The aro spectrum is not a universally agreed upon concept. Some people with an aro spectrum identity think of themselves as alloromantic. Furthermore, some people consider the idea of an aro spectrum nonsensical since aromanticism itself is total lack of romantic attraction. Both aro spectrum and alloromantic people can be romance-positive, -neutral, or -repulsed. Romance-positive aromantic people may be involved in romantic relationships. Some people consider this appropriation of the aromantic identity.
Arophobia is the fear and hatred of all people who are on the aromantic spectrum and/or express their aromanticism. Arophobia encompases any belief which posits alloromanticism as superior to aromanticism. Arophobia is related to amatonormativity. Elizabeth Brake defined amatonormativity as the following in her book Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law:
|The assumption that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in the sense that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types.|
Some examples of amatornomativity include: pressuring people to pursue romantic relationships; insisting that romantic relationships are superior to all other ones; assuming that people who are not in romantic relationships are miserable; and assuming that everyone wants to end up with a romantic partner. Some examples of arophobia specifically include assuming that aromantic people are lonely, “sociopaths”, damaged, heartless, or hypersexual. Insisting that aromantic people just need to find the “right” person to fall in love with is also arophobic.
Queerplatonic (or quasiplatonic) are aromantic relationships They are not romantic but nonetheless involve an intense emotional connection beyond or in addition to friendship.
The term like the concept of queering gender, it aims to subvert and question the norms we set out for relationships. People of all orientations and genders can be in (a) queerplatonic relationship(s). Queerplatonic relationships can involve sex (intercourse), but are defined non-romantic attachment.
There have been dozens of proposed pride flags. A flag that has existed for some time is the one on National Coalition for Aromantic Visibility’s website, reproduced at the top of the article. The stripes have the following meanings:
|The different stripes represent different aspects of aromanticism and our community. Green is for aromantics, who do not naturally experience romantic attachment. Yellow represents romantic friendship, friends with benefits, friendship dating, and queerplatonic relationships. Orange stands for lithromantics, individuals who experience romantic love but do not wish it returned. And finally, the black stripe is for romantics who consciously choose to reject traditional romantic culture.|
Symbols for aromantic pride often include arrows. Much like the ace of spades for the asexual (ace) community, “arrow” is a pun on the abbreviation “aro”.
Here is aromantic test you could try:
Well readers, thank you so much for reading. Actually I was curious about my ex because he was too cold and has no desire in romantic and sexual. So maybe he is an ace-aro, but I don’t wanna judge him before he gets any psychology test. It was my uncomfortable feeling and suffer while I was with him because he seemed like he had no interest to be with me, or not interested having romantic relationship or anything. But thank God our relationship is over now and I will be more carefull to date any other guy next time.
Naomi Indah Sari
You also can follow me on instagram:
or add me as friend on facebook:
Naomi Indah Sari
Bandung, June 20th 2017
Hi readers, today I wanna share you about asexuality. I got a word “asexuality” was about 5 years ago, actually I forgot where did I get it. But I remember I watched some documenter videos about asexuality on youtube. I’m interested about this topic from several years ago, but I never wrote about it until last time I dated a guy who said that he has no desire for sexuality. Then I thought about it, I analyzed it more from the internet and tested him, and I also watched his action to me, etc. After we dated for several months I found he was cold, cold in sexuality, cold in communication, cold in everything. I felt really suffer because I didn’t feel he loved me or interested on me. Seemed like he was busy with his world and had no desire for being in relationship, and of course I did’t find any quality in our relationship because he talked less and did less. It was my first experience dating with a guy who didn’t have any desire on me and also he couldn’t show his attention or his care to me and to our relationship. So, I felt like I dated a “man doll” with no expression, no desire, no attention, no care and no everything.
Suddenly today I read again about asexuality, and I wanna share to you readers what asexuality is all about. I don’t judge my ex as asexual person, but maybe he is, but of course we need do more valid psychology test to get to know him. But well, just forget it. lol
Right now I wanna share you an article from http://www.whatisasexuality.com/intro/
What Is Asexuality?
Asexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by a persistent lack of sexual attraction toward any gender.
At least 1% of people are believed to be asexual.
Who Is Asexual?
An asexual person (“ace”, for short) is simply someone who does not experience sexual attraction. That’s all there is to it. Aces can be any sex or gender or age or ethnic background or body type, can be rich or poor, can wear any clothing style, and can be any religion or political affiliation.
In short: There is no asexual “type”.
A Misunderstood Orientation
Many people hear the word “asexual” and make assumptions about what it means. They think of single-celled organisms in a petri dish. They think of a celibate monk on far off mountaintop. They think of a genderless robot from outer space. Asexuality isn’t any of those things.
Asexuality is not an abstinence pledge. (Although there may be abstinent aces.)
Asexuality is not a synonym for celibacy. (There are celibate aces and promiscuous aces and aces everywhere in between.)
Asexuality is not a gender identity. (Although there may be trans, non-binary, or genderqueer aces.)
Asexuality is not a disorder. (Although there may be aces with physical or mental conditions.)
Asexuality is not a choice. (Although not every ace is “born that way”.)
Asexuality is not a hormone imbalance. (Although there may be aces with hormone issues.)
Asexuality is not a fear of sex or relationships. (Although there may be aces who are afraid of or otherwise dislike sex or relationships.)
Attraction, Not Action
Asexuality is a sexual orientation, like homosexuality or heterosexuality. And like being straight or being gay, it’s about what someone feels, not what someone does. Dating, having sex, masturbating, falling in love, getting married, or having children do not conflict with asexuality in any way. There are many reasons why an asexual person might do these things that do not require sexual attraction to be present.
Experiencing arousal or orgasm also do not conflict with asexuality.
Some Do, Some Don’t
Many questions people have about asexuality can be answered with the same phrase: “Some Do, Some Don’t.” Do asexuals date? Some do, some don’t. Do asexuals fall in love? Some do, some don’t. Do asexuals have sex? Some do, some don’t. Do asexuals masturbate? Some do, some don’t. Do asexuals like pepperoni pizza? Some do, some don’t. We are all individuals, with our own individual preferences and personalities, and it is generally impossible to make blanket statements about us.
The Gray Areas
Some people feel that they are “almost asexual” or “asexual with an exception”. That is, they strongly identify with being asexual, except for a few limited or infrequent experiences of sexual attraction. Gray-asexual people fall in between asexuality and non-asexuality. In some cases, they experience sexual attraction only rarely. In others, they’re unsure if they’ve experienced it or don’t feel that they quite fit the definition of asexual in some way. Demisexual people are only capable of feeling sexual attraction after developing a strong emotional bond with someone. Demisexuality and gray-asexuality fall within what’s called the “asexual spectrum”.
The Concept of Love
Along with a sexual orientation, people have what’s called a romantic or affectional orientation that describes who that person might be romantically attracted to. In many people, the sexual and romantic orientations are aligned, so people tend not to think about them being separate concepts. It is not uncommon for asexuals to experience romantic attraction.
Romantic orientations are given names that parallel sexual orientations. For instance, a heteroromantic person is someone who experiences romantic attraction toward a different gender, homoromantic toward the same gender, and so on. A significant number of asexuals also identify as aromantic, which means that they do not experience romantic attraction.
Separating romantic and sexual attraction is not strictly limited to asexual people, however. For instance, it is possible for someone to be an aromantic heterosexual, or any other combination.
How Can I Tell?
If you want to know if you’re asexual, ask yourself the following question: “Do I feel sexual attraction?” If the answer is “No”, you’re asexual. The problem with that question is that “sexual attraction” is a vague phrase. It’s difficult to say that you’ve never felt something, if you don’t know what that something feels like.
If you’re still unsure, here is a list of questions to help guide your thoughts. They’re not meant as a checklist to “diagnose” asexuality, rather, they describe feelings that many asexual people have had.
Are you generally disinterested in sex?
Is your interest in sex more scientific than emotional?
Do you feel left out or confused when others discuss sex?
If you had sex, did you think it was dull or boring, and not the amazing experience other people made it out to be?
Have you ever had to pretend to be interested in someone in order to fit in?
Have you ever felt “broken” because you don’t experience sexual feelings like those around you?
Have you ever felt that you were straight “by default” or that you were bi or pan because you were equally (dis)interested in all genders?
Have you ever gone out with someone or had sex because you felt “that’s what you’re supposed to do?”
If you want to know if someone else is asexual, you have to talk to them about it. There are no outward signs of asexuality, and you shouldn’t attempt to label someone else against their will.
Well readers, I’m also sharing to you the video when David Jay, who is asexual (ace) sharing his struggle for being asexual. David Jay was born in April 24th 1982, he is an American asexual activist. Jay is the founder and webmaster of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN).
Jay is from St. Louis, Missouri, and he graduated from Crossroads College Preparatory School in 2000. At the age of 15, Jay began considering himself asexual, and he came out as asexual while a student at Wesleyan University in Connecticut.
Frustrated with the lack of resources available regarding asexuality, Jay launched AVEN’s website in 2001. Since then, he has taken a leading role in the asexuality movement, appearing on multiple television shows, and being featured heavily in Arts Engine’s 2011 documentary (A) sexual.
AVEN, which Salon.com referred to as the “unofficial online headquarters” of the asexuality movement, is widely recognised as the largest online asexual community. Its two main goals are to create public acceptance and discussion about asexuality and to facilitate the growth of a large online asexual community. As of June 17, 2013, AVEN has nearly 70,000 registered members.
In New York City, working both with the Department of Education and private organizations, he’s been providing training on Ace inclusion to health educators.
He has a vision for a post-sex world, one that asks all of us to work on building a more empathetic, intimate society that celebrates any kind of close human relationship, whether or not it involves sex.
You also can try this asexual test:
Thank you so much everyone for reading…
Naomi Indah Sari
Glossary — WhatIsAsexuality.com
Asexuality: A Brief Introduction — AsexualityArchive.com
Q & Ace — AsexualityArchive.com
Possible Signs of Asexuality — AsexualityArchive.com
Am I Ace? — WhatIsAsexuality.com
You also can follow me on instagram:
or add me as friend on facebook:
Naomi Indah Sari
Bandung, April 14th 2017
I found an article about the issue in USA which talk about sexual harrasment. I really concern about this topic, and I found this interesting article. Lets read it…
One of the most pernicious ideas in American life is that sexual harassment lawsuits are an example of political correctness gone mad.
For the last few months I’ve been working on a video series for Highline, a re-examination of all the things we got wrong in the 1990s. The first episode is about the sexual harassment freakouts that cropped up in the wake of the Anita Hill hearing and what was really behind them.
Here’s a sequence that didn’t make it into the final cut, four women testifying at a 1992 Congressional hearing:
This is why we have sexual harassment laws.
Before 1986, none of these stories would have been illegal. Until Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the only workplace discrimination that fell under the law was quid pro quo harassment, the kind where your boss explicitly tells you that if you want this promotion, you’ll have to sleep with him. Skeezy comments about your looks, getting groped at the water cooler, being told you had to meet a higher standard because of your gender, all that was just the cost of being a woman at work.
The most incredible thing about these cases, though, isn’t just the shittiness of the people perpetrating them. It’s the narrow-mindedness of the people in charge of punishing them.
Reading old sexual harassment cases, what you see over and over again is judges who simply couldn’t accept that women were blameless in their own abuse. One victim testified that she been assaulted by her boss for three straight years, that he touched her under the table during work meetings, that he bought her dinner her first week on the job and invited her to a motel afterward. The judges were skeptical. What was she wearing? Why did she go to dinner in the first place? Didn’t she eventually give in and have sex with him? Surely his advances weren’t that unwelcome.
This is how members of Congress treated Anita Hill too. If Clarence Thomas had been such a terrible boss, they asked her in 50 different ways, why did she later ask him for a reference? Despite all the alleged harassment, Arlen Specter pointed out, she never once complained to Thomas’s superiors. She even—gasp—picked him up at the airport once, years after they stopped working together.
It’s fascinating to me all the ways in which societal power is invisible to the people wielding it. For old, white, affluent judges, it simply didn’t make sense that a woman would have sex with her manager unless she really wanted to. Congress members couldn’t comprehend why a woman would maintain a relationship with her dickhead former boss, why she would wait years before publicly complaining about his behavior, why she would read aggression into his flirting and his backrubs and his ribald anecdotes.
I don’t think every judge and every Senator back then was a big old sleazebag. What I do think is that they suffered from a specific form of blindness, one that is human and understandable and utterly pernicious. We are all, in ways major and minor, incapable of seeing the world through anything but our own example. If you have never feared unemployment, the moral compromises others make to avoid it seem foreign. If you have never been hurt by jokes about your gender or your race or your sexuality, those who complain about them seem oversensitive.
Somehow, in the 25 years since the Anita Hill hearing (and, as I argue in the video, the passage of the 1991 Civil Rights Act), sexual harassment has become a synonym for a country that can no longer take a joke. Colleagues can’t even ask each other out for a drink nowadays. Managers can’t pat their employees on the shoulder.
But in fact, sexual harassment cases have been dwindling for years, and the mechanisms behind them have been steadily eroded. Since 1991, punitive damages have been capped at $500,000. Those eight-digit settlements you’re always reading about? Companies only have to pay a fraction of them. A study in 2002 found that more than half of large punitive damages awards got overturned on appeal. And that’s for the cases that make it to court. The vast majority of them don’t.
The real problem, in other words, is not that we have all become oversensitive. It is that we are not sensitive enough.
I am sure that, in this big and crowded country, someone somewhere has filed a frivolous lawsuit claiming to be sexual harassed when they weren’t. But becoming the country where that happens is not what we should fear. It is becoming the country that we used to be—one where no one is allowed to file them at all.
What we talk about when we talk about sexual harassment
Bandung, Feb 20th 2017
Today suddenly I’m feeling so random. I don’t know why. I feel lonely and sad. And today suddenly I think about love. Why fall in love is always hurt, even we still feel the joy at the beginning. And why we sometimes feel comfort with the person we’re not fall in love with.
Well, then I found this article below that said that falling in love is not real.
If I were to be asked the best thing that could happen to a person, my answer would be to feel loved. I bet many of us have enjoyed the experience of falling in love. But what if I tell you falling in love is not real love ?
Before I tell you why. Let us see what Falling In Love is…
- Falling in love comes naturally.
You see the other person, you get attracted- your heart beats fast, you can think of nothing else but him or her. You’ve got butterflies on your stomach. You’re on cloud-nine whenever you’re together. You don’t decide when and to whom. You just feel it. Sometimes we even fall in love to the person we least expect to fall in love with. Moreover, you also cannot force your self to fall in love. No matter how much you want, you cannot just make it happen.
- Falling in love is effortless.
Whatever we do when we fall in love is not difficult to do. Sometimes, we spend money on dates, but it’s okay as long as we’re having dinner with our beloved. We fly to the other side of the world, but it’s okay as long as we could be with our partner even if it’s only for a few hours. You may skip basketball games with your peers because you have to go with her on a tree planting activity. OR you will pass on salon day with your best friend because you will watch him play baseball. ALL these things will be effortless. It doesn’t require much will-power.
- Falling in love is finding your perfect match, and feeling in love forever.
You finally meet the perfect guy or girl who completes you. He/she is everything you’re looking for in a partner. You just know that he/she is THE ONE for you. You will never look at another person again.
Falling in love is an experience of temporary emotional high. It will not last long enough to sustain a happy relationship.
LOVE will. So, if falling in love is not real love. What is Real LOVE?
As a matter of fact, Real Love requires what is not present in falling in love.
- Real Love requires Decision.
Sometimes, we hate the person we love but does it mean we stop loving them? No. You still make coffee for your husband in the morning even if you’re mad at him for not mowing the lawn. You still drive your wife to work even if you’re pissed because she forgot to pay the electric bill. Love is a Choice.
- Real Love requires Effort.
Sometimes, we don’t want to do things but because we love, we give effort and still do it.
A tired and sleepy mom would still wake up in the middle at the night to feed their baby. A father who worked overnight will still wake up very early in the morning to drive the children in school. You don’t know how to cook but your spouse loves home-cooked meal so you learn the art of cooking and be the best food engineer! That is love.
- Real Love requires Commitment.
The person you love may hurt you, annoy you, make you angry, make you jealous, belittle you, or disrespect you…but if you’re committed, you will always remind your self to love them in spite and despite of. Does it mean you have to just take in and tolerate the negatives? Nope… there is a thing called Tough Love!
In addition, there will always be a time when you will find another person who is better than your spouse or partner in one or more criteria. Again, we have to remind ourselves to be committed & choose to stay in our relationships.
LOVE works with Hard Work in order to survive obstacles. Loving is simple BUT it is not always easy. Nonetheless, the reward is always worth 10 times more the effort!
Why Falling In Love is Not Real Love – http://wp.me/p7x1jD-1JL
You also can follow my instagram: naomiindahsari
My facebook: naomi indah sari
Bandung, January 8th 2017
Hi readers, today I visited another blog that I follow and found this article below. Being around with negative people is very exhausting. But well, we still need to hold our emotion sometimes. If we get mad because of them (negative people), it’s really not good for our emotion & mental health. So, right now I’m sharing this article about how to identify negative people. Happy reading….
As you venture into becoming a new, more improved you in 2017, you should review the people in your circle. Let’s face it, relationships matter. Who we connect ourselves to matter. Relationships are so important that the Harvard Business Review wrote an article about the importance of relationships to one’s health and wellbeing, stating, “[studies] have linked disappointing or negative interactions with family and friends with poorer health (2010).” If relationships have an impact on your health and wellbeing, it is certain to say, you must be mindful when choosing the people in your circle. You cannot be great if you’re still holding onto a toxic person because as the saying goes, “one bad apple ruins the whole bunch.” It’s hard to be around negative people and not end up being negative. It’s hard being around gossiping people and not end up being a gossiper. It’s hard being around an abusive person and not end up being abused.
So, what am I saying here? Change your circle. You have too much to accomplish in 2017 to be around people who will bring you down. This is the year you should finally say yes to everything you’ve wanted to do. You don’t have time to be connected to the wrong people because those wrong people have a tendency to make you get off track. You need laser focus. It’s time to stop saying you want a different life and start doing it, therefore you will need a circle of relationships that will help you accomplish your goals. The people in your relationships should hold you accountable and encourage you to get to the finish line while you’re encouraging them to do the same.
To help you identify toxic relationships in your life, here are 10 characteristics of the people who are normally toxic to your health, wellbeing, and goals:
1. They’re always gossiping: People who are always gossiping eventually will gossip about you. Normally, when people gossip, they are putting people down, something you don’t have time for because you’re trying to be a better you. You don’t have time to compare yourself to anyone else. As Eleanor Roosevelt stated, “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” Do you want to be a small-minded person or great-minded?
2. They are rarely on the giving end:Most toxic people attempt to find ways to use you. Do you notice that a person in your circle never helps you or gives you anything, but you’re always giving tirelessly to them? Get rid of them.
3. They never seem to be genuinely happy for you when you share a win:No matter how many small or great things you share about doing something positive or finishing a goal, a toxic person is never genuinely happy for you. They may act like they’re happy, but you can feel the disingenuousness radiating from their congratulating remarks. They may even congratulate you but then turn the conversation to something else because your win is really not something they want to discuss.
4. They abuse you, physically or mentally: Um, big one here. People who care about or love you will not abuse you, physically or mentally. Enough said!
5. They attempt to control who you can communicate with: The control freak has an immature attitude. Because they no longer talk to someone, they don’t like for you to talk to them. Excuse me, but adults are allowed to communicate with whomever they wish. Again, no time for such immature behavior.
6. They do not like opposing opinions: For the toxic person, you better not offer an opposing opinion to theirs. How dare you not feel how they feel about a particular individual or situation? Why would you not agree with them? Perhaps because you have a brain and the ability to think and reason as you please?? Besides, who wants a friend who always agrees with them? If I’m in the wrong, please tell me. Friends should not allow friends to go down the wrong path. We cannot control the friend’s final actions, but we can express concern for them. Also, if my website or business idea is silly, please tell me and explain why you feel that way.
7. They’re always the victim: Haveyou ever met someone who never seems to like anyone because the people they don’t like have always done them wrong? The victimized toxic person always has a story of why they don’t like a person, and whatever happened is never their fault. The victim never takes responsibility for anything!
8. When they give, it’s out of expectation to receive: This infamous giver may appear to be a giving individual; however, they’re giving is really out of expectation to receive. If they give you a Christmas card, you better give them one too. Who cares about giving out of the kindness of your heart with this person?
9. They’re overall a negative person:You try to have hope for the negative person, but no matter how much light you shine, their darkness prevails. The negative person always tells you what you can’t do or how dumb your idea is. It’s ok to have an opposing opinion, but to always tell me I can’t do something is an issue. They tell you you can’t go to college because no one in your family ever went. You can’t start a business because you’re broke. You can’t work on Wall Street because you filed bankruptcy. Our mistakes are what help us to learn lessons and to become a better person, so if someone is telling you why you can’t do something, examine the reason they are telling you. On the journey to greatness, you really don’t have time for someone to be telling you you can’t do something, whether big or small. You’ll never know unless you try, right?
10. They seem to want to hold you back: This toxic individual may subtly attempt to hold you back. You may not notice it at first, but then you think about all the times you’ve been distracted by them when you’re doing something to better yourself. What you’re doing isn’t important to them or they just may be afraid you will leave them behind. A good friend will not be afraid, but will cheer you along as they are on the same journey to achieving their goal. People who genuinely care about you understand there is enough goodness in the universe for everyone to win if they try.
10 Ways to Identify Negative People – http://wp.me/p7bq2c-2XP
You also can follow my instagram:
Naomi Indah Sari