Jump to content

Possible sub-section of Demisexuality?


MoraDollie

Recommended Posts

The definition doesn't specify if an emotional bond is required before experiencing that type of attraction. Is there more information on that label and how it's used? That being said, some demi(sexual/romantic/platonic/aesthetic/alterous) people may fall under this label.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition doesn't specify if an emotional bond is required before experiencing that type of attraction. Is there more information on that label and how it's used? That being said, some demi(sexual/romantic/platonic/aesthetic/alterous) people may fall under this label.

I don't mean to criticize you, Aqua, but geez, I have to echo what CBC says. Just how would we explain this stuff to asexuals (who compose most of the world and whom we hope to convince that we actually exist) without meeting with a barrage of hysterical laughter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, this is why we can't have nice things. And by "nice things", I'm referring to widespread acceptance of asexuality as a legitimate sexuality. We've gotta stop creating all these special snowflake terms so that asexuality itself is taken seriously, as it deserves to be.

I don't know. I think people can come up with different terms if they want but it's not something that the whole world needs to be educated about. Kind of like how gays have their breaking down of different types of gays using animals like bears and otters. Most people don't know that stuff but it's something gay people in the community encounter. Not many people know about frayromantic or autochorissexual but people in the community may have encountered them before. It just doesn't need to be in an Asexuality 101 explanation. It's more like Asexuality 401 level :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't heard of alterous yet. So it's just the orientation form for a squish?

And i agree it's unneeded. If they rarely experience attraction then they can go by gray-romantic/sexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition doesn't specify if an emotional bond is required before experiencing that type of attraction. Is there more information on that label and how it's used? That being said, some demi(sexual/romantic/platonic/aesthetic/alterous) people may fall under this label.

I don't mean to criticize you, Aqua, but geez, I have to echo what CBC says. Just how would we explain this stuff to asexuals (who compose most of the world and whom we hope to convince that we actually exist) without meeting with a barrage of hysterical laughter?

Some people might find the unioriented label useful, because they might not be sure if they could still be considered gray asexual/romantic/aesthetic/platonic/alterous due to that attraction lasting for a long period of time. I haven't seen others mention that label yet though, but I understand that this situation is different from someone experiencing a certain kind of attraction only once, and not for a long period of time; those people may be more easily able to consider themselves gray.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, this is why we can't have nice things. And by "nice things", I'm referring to widespread acceptance of asexuality as a legitimate sexuality. We've gotta stop creating all these special snowflake terms so that asexuality itself is taken seriously, as it deserves to be.

I don't know. I think people can come up with different terms if they want but it's not something that the whole world needs to be educated about. Kind of like how gays have their breaking down of different types of gays using animals like bears and otters. Most people don't know that stuff but it's something gay people in the community encounter. Not many people know about frayromantic or autochorissexual but people in the community may have encountered them before. It just doesn't need to be in an Asexuality 101 explanation. It's more like Asexuality 401 level :p

There is a huge difference. A bear and his cub, a wolf and his pup... there are terms within the community which describe very specific roles because it's necessary to communicate when looking for a sexual partner. There's a purpose, and that purpose is directly related to someone other than the label holder. The asexual labels are all narcissistic identity-masturbation... they exist for no one but the person adopting the label. If you're a bear and you want to meet a cub, it's socially beneficial to label the specific dynamic you're asking another person to join. By comparison, the asexual labels are completely subjective and serve no outward purpose... you could have 3 people who all experience the exact same thing and all choose 3 completely different asexual labels, because they are so absurdly subjective as to render them meaningless.

In short... the animal terms are 1) practical; 2) meant for the benefit of others; and 3) objective, whereas "fraysexual" and the like are the exact opposite of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the obvious logical issue that one only knows if one stays attracted for a whole lifetime when they're at the end of their lifetime. I cannot wait for 15 year olds to declare their orientation as unioriented, as if there is any possible way to have that insight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the obvious logical issue that one only knows if one stays attracted for a whole lifetime when they're at the end of their lifetime. I cannot wait for 15 year olds to declare their orientation as unioriented, as if there is any possible way to have that insight.

That orientation is called "naive" :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Margaret's suitors will know to back it up since she had such an awesomely devout husband they'll never be able to live up to... and that's literally the only benefit I can think of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I see this as more attraction or just really liking someone and really not based on gender and orientation. I agree that labels are getting ridiculous and it's hard enough with the labels we already have. I usually fall for white guys but I don't feel I need a label for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a trope for this

But yeah, I basically see it as what a demi- becomes once in the state of actually being in a relationship. You experience attraction to that person and none other. I don't really think of that as a "subset" of demi; it IS demi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't heard of alterous yet. So it's just the orientation form for a squish?

And i agree it's unneeded. If they rarely experience attraction then they can go by gray-romantic/sexual.

Alterous is the gray zone between romantic and platonic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah, I basically see it as what a demi- becomes once in the state of actually being in a relationship. You experience attraction to that person and none other. I don't really think of that as a "subset" of demi; it IS demi.

No, I disagree completely with that. This is not the same as being demi-. There are some people who identify as demi- who have only experienced attraction (in whatever form) to one single person. It's possible they would identify with this label. However, that's not necessarily the experience of every person with a form of demi-attraction.

Speaking from my own experience, I am sexually attracted to my best friend (though there's no desire to act on said attraction, because just...ew, no). At the same time, I am also sexually attracted to another very close friend. The two don't cancel each other out. In the same vein, if I find a significant other and someday find myself attracted to that person, then I would be attracted to three people. All at the same time! That would fit being demisexual, but it would not fit the label of unisexual.

So, all in all (and to answer the OP's initial question), I wouldn't call uni-attraction a subset of demi-attraciton, but there's probably some overlap between the two. It's hard to be more specific because I'm not familiar with uni-attraction and am going off of this one definition. If people are using this label, I'd be interested in hearing more about why they feel a distinct need for it and what their personal experiences are, so I can better understand how it applies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole "uniattraction" thing sounds really close to another term that already exists, is already well-established among the general populace, and won't get you nearly as many weird looks for applying it to yourself.

Monogamous.

Meld it however you like (monoamorous or whatever, if you're not into marriage and can't disassociate -gamy with marriage or something) but yeah, I agree with the above in saying this isn't really something that deserves to have another snowflakey term attached to it when demi- already fits the bill close enough for most.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole "uniattraction" thing sounds really close to another term that already exists, is already well-established among the general populace, and won't get you nearly as many weird looks for applying it to yourself.

Monogamous.

That sounds suspiciously similar to the way some people react to demisexuals by telling them that they don't need a label because "Yeah, it's called having standards."/"That's how everyone is!" It ignores a basic premise in the description, in this case that some who feels uni-attractions feels it specifically for one person - and no others - over a long period of time. That does sound similar to monogamy, except the part where people in monogamous (or monoamorous) relationships can still experience attraction to others outside of the relationship. Hence that old quip about "I'm married, not dead".

Or perhaps we're operating from different definitions of mono-relationships, in which case, please point me in the direction of the correct information so I can educate myself on this subject further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The flag is a bit much. I think maybe you should wait until a much bigger group of people adopt an identity before giving it a flag. Otherwise you're sort of making decisions for them, and that's in the extremely optimistic picture where a group forms at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
scarletlatitude

This whole "uniattraction" thing sounds really close to another term that already exists, is already well-established among the general populace, and won't get you nearly as many weird looks for applying it to yourself.

Monogamous.

That sounds suspiciously similar to the way some people react to demisexuals by telling them that they don't need a label because "Yeah, it's called having standards."/"That's how everyone is!" It ignores a basic premise in the description, in this case that some who feels uni-attractions feels it specifically for one person - and no others - over a long period of time. That does sound similar to monogamy, except the part where people in monogamous (or monoamorous) relationships can still experience attraction to others outside of the relationship. Hence that old quip about "I'm married, not dead".

Or perhaps we're operating from different definitions of mono-relationships, in which case, please point me in the direction of the correct information so I can educate myself on this subject further.

I can agree with this. Monogamous doesn't mean that all of your sexual attraction to other people just disappears. You can still experience sexual attraction, you just choose not to act on it. It's kind of like celibacy vs. asexuality. Celibate people are choosing not to participate in sex, while asexuals have no desire at all.

Let's all be careful to not invalidate anyone's choice of labels. It's okay to disagree, but keep it respectful and objective. We don't want anyone to feel like they are being put down. Thanks. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't heard of alterous yet. So it's just the orientation form for a squish?

And i agree it's unneeded. If they rarely experience attraction then they can go by gray-romantic/sexual.

Alterous is the gray zone between romantic and platonic.

But i looked it up and the creator of the term said it's just a desire for emotional closeness but the person isn't comfortable putting that as romantic or platonic. So that's either a squish or an orientation for QPRs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why monogamy needs to translate to sexuality but I'm not here to tell people which labels they can call themselves. As far as is it an offset of Demisexuality is concerned. I didn't notice anything about Demisexuality, such as emotional connection or lack of primary attraction, in the description. I don't think this would qualify as an offset when it doesn't seem related to begin with.

Getting a little less factual and more opinion driven, so I apologize in advanced if I'm making a poor generalization. Most of the Demisexuals I've talked to have very few people they've ever been attracted to. I usually hear between 1 and 3. With that said they might as well be asexual to the rest of the world besides those few cases. So why would a Demisexual in a monogamous relationship be such a big deal in the first place?

Link to post
Share on other sites
scarletlatitude

I don't think we're arguing that demis can't be monogamous. Certainly they can be. But there is a difference between a sexual person who is monogamous and a demisexual person who is monogamous. The orientations are different, even though the arrangement with their partners is the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't mean that demi's couldn't be monogomous, maybe I'm just bad at articulating. The first part I meant that I didn't see any demi requirements uni-attraction. What I meant by the second part was that I didn't think it would be very uncommon for demi's to be monogomous in the first place, when there are very few, if any, other people they would be sexually attracted to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Monogamous is different because you can have possibly multiple partners throughout your life....just one after another. Uniattraction implies one person...only and forever, that's it. That one person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Monogamous is different because you can have possibly multiple partners throughout your life....just one after another. Uniattraction implies one person...only and forever, that's it. That one person.

I was initially a bit hesitant about the idea, for the same reason Skullery mentioned; how would you know before you're dead? But then I got to thinking about the idea in the context of imprinting and the Westermarck effect, which could offer some support for the concept of irreversible attachment pattern formation.

As I can't say I've run across any such individuals, do you have any idea of how they feel it works? I mean, if it's just very low frequency attraction I don't really see much point in a separate label, but if it's more of a one-shot imprinting, then it would be different enough in nature so there might be a point to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...