I’m playing as a witch in our newest campaign….magic is a lot harder than I thought.
Context: we’re in a cave and the party split up. 4 people just fought 9 spiders and all but one were knocked out. Now it’s me and 2 other people trying to fight spiders in a different part of the cave and one girl was already knocked out and inflict light wounds isn’t doing much for me.
Me, panicking: should I use my crossbow? Should I use a spell?
our DM, who is trying DMing for the first time: why don’t you use one of your hexes?
me: they wouldn’t fit in this situation…
the sorceror, who is really good at pathfinder and DMs a lot: I told you misfortune would be a good idea…
me: DON’T YELL AT ME!!! ALL I HAVE IS “KILL SHIT” (blight) AND “TALK TO SPIDERS” (tongues, in which I could have spoken to the spiders for a minute)
the sorceror: WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY??? WE COULD HAVE AVOIDED THIS IF YOU HAD TALKED TO THEM!!!!
Me: is it too late??
our DM: well, you already cut 2 of its legs off so it probably won’t want to listen to you
Real quick: there is nothing wrong or gross or even unusual about having sexual urges related to sexual attraction, nothing wrong with seeing strangers as sexually attractive without knowing anything about them, nothing even wrong with having sex for its own sake and not for the purpose of connecting with a partner. I think it is easy to combat both “All non-asexuals have the same relationship to sex” and “All LGBT people are sex crazed” with a weird watering down of sexual attraction between us, and watering down of our sexual desires, or with a tendency to say we don’t all have the same relationship to sexuality but ours are somehow magical and clean. But our sexualities aren’t gross and don’t need cleaning up- even being strongly sexually attracted to strangers is fine and okay and very healthy, and not objectifying. To buy those terms of conversation is to buy homophobic goalposts, and to combat a universalizing understanding of LGBT people’s sexualities with yet another, more politically comfortable, but equally universalizing model of LGBT people sexualities.
“Objectification” is meant to be used in as literal a sense as possible, to refer not to sexual attraction to women but an inability to see them as people. I think it’s hard for a lot of women to wrap their heads around the fact that this is a common feature of men’s sexualities because it’s hard for them to understand that many men literally do not see women as more than a hole for them to fuck. But just wanting to have sex with women (and other men, in the case of gay and bi men, or generally, in the case of trans people) is not gross, even random women, even women with whom you have prior emotional connection. I know objectification- I know how men talk about women when they are trying to form masculine bonds with me, and worse I know how men talk about women when they think I am also a man and there are no women around, and it’s not JUST “She’s hot and I don’t know her name.”
We should be careful not to lapse into, “Well everyone is demisexual” as an argument because I guarantee that is not the case. I love fucking women, I love respectful and occurring hookups, I love casual sex with no romantic strings attached outside of general emotional support, I’ve had fulfilling and fun sex with friends I had no romantic feelings for. None of that is bad. But to make the claim that most people don’t enjoy sex or feel attraction to other people sexually without knowing things about them is 1) straight up false and 2) needlessly stigmatizing.