In backwards chronological order:
I ate a tortilla with nothing but chili flakes and sea salt on it, and then drank apple juice.
What a Girl Wants **It's not
bad, exactly, but I never really found out "what a girl wants" and remained relatively unamused and uninspired. Amanda Bynes is very sweet.
I downloaded what turned out to be a collection of porn actors sitting on couches, breaking the fourth wall down, and discussing bondage techniques. I learned that handcuffs are likely a bad idea for beginners (may lose key, may be harsh on the wrists), two new knots, and the importance of allowing enough slack in order to allow rotation of the hands, to prevent injury and to easily remove bindings immediately if necessary ("You can always buy a new rope"). I also learned that some porn actors have excellent comedic timing.
Possibly the funniest thing to come out of it was the woman hurrying around in the background of one segment working to secure the bindings on a woman who was occupied. It reminded me of tech support personnel working behind the scenes (if they look like they have nothing to do, they're doing their job properly), or even Argus Filch cleaning up the hallways of Hogwarts after the battle... despite the neon-coloured crotchless tights.
The best case against labels for sexuality that I've found so far
It's really complicated. I did't even know there were words for some of this kind of thing. The Kinsey scale, you could stick a number (or an X) on it. But there are more dimensions than I believed, including separating sexual and romantic attraction (and/or the lack of both), certain conditions of attraction. This is stuff obscure and rare enough not to make it into the English-language Wikipedia mainspace.
Labels are only useful as long as the audience is aware of what they mean. I'm sure most people know the meaning of "straight" and "gay" and "bi". I'm also fairly certain that the term "asexual" is in somewhat lesser circulation. As for "demisexual", "biromantic", "Type A-D asexual" and so forth, well, no. There are probably a few people in the world who would find it difficult to label their preference without using the more obscure terms, but using them is counterproductive to the purpose of a label. To stick with the Kinsey scale, including Sheldon's "no deal, not even sock puppets" unnecessarily pigeonholes a person into simple textbook definitions which may be difficult to reason out of later.
I agree that it is useful as a quick profiling tool to convey to others the gist of things, but sexual preference tends to be a touchy topic where I'm from, and it's as difficult to amend definitions as to give and have to explain the correct (and complex) one initially. (As in, for example, "what do you mean, you said you're definitely very straight but now you say you don't actually want to screw anyone at all, I'm so confused" (relevant label: hetero-romantic asexual).)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}