I'm having trouble defining myself

[HallsiKallsi]

I had discovered I was asexual months ago, but two months ago, I fell in love with this girl, I started feeling feelings be never felt before, including sexual attraction, I've been trying to figure this out, but I'm having trouble with it, can you help me?

[proud_of_me]

that sounds a lot like demisexuality. its a branch of asexuality that has sexual attraction come after romantic involvement. demisexuality is just as cool as any sexuality, although its less known. you might also be gray-asexual, which is a sexuality when you experience sexual attraction only under certain conditions (which vary person to person)

[Star Bit]

No, Demisexuality is not an asexual, it is a Gray-sexual/Gray-asexual (depending on which side one feels they fall more toward). Asexuality, or aromanticism for that matter, is not a spectrum; white is not a spectrum; Sexuality, Romanticism, Gray-sexuality/Gray-asexuality, and Gray-romanticism/Gray-aromanticism are. It also does not mean sexual attraction after romance; Demisexual strictly means desiring sex after a specific bond.

Assuming the OP is using sexual attraction correctly and means they desire to do genital involving things to someone else. If the reason you desire sex isn't bond related/you've had the same bond with other partners and not desired sex, then perhaps you experience sexual attraction rarely, which is under the Gray-asexual/Gray-sexual umbrella. And it's not entirely about having sexual attraction under specific cercomstances (though a majority of it is), but anything between desiring sex and not; there's a difference between sexual attraction, sexual arousal, and desiring sex in general.

[Meudwen]

Congrats on the love! :lol:

As for the confusion, my only suggestion is to make sure that you aren't mistaking sexual attraction with sensual or aesthetic attraction. I agree with proud_of_me, if it's sexual attraction then you might be demisexual or grey-asexual.

No, Demisexuality is not an asexual, it is a Gray-sexual/Gray-asexual (depending on which side one feels they fall more toward).

I get what you're saying, but I can't help but disagree with the wording. I've always seen people say that Demis and Greys are welcomed under the ace umbrella and in the ace community, because they experience sexual attraction so infrequently they don't really fit in with the sexual side of the spectrum. Maybe it's just a matter of splitting hairs between what is meant by "spectrum" and "umbrella" though. "Squares are rectangles but rectangles are not squares" comes to mind. Asexuality is it's own thing, but at the same time I think people use a larger "ace" umbrella that includes demi and grey.

Asexuality, or aromanticism for that matter, is not a spectrum; white is not a spectrum;

Weird. I didn't realize asexuals were a homogeneous group. I'm not sure what the criteria for being a perfectly pure "white" ace is, then, but I have a strong feeling that I'm too sullied to fit into the club. Damn. Back into no-man's land for me. :P

[Telecaster68]

I didn't realize asexuals were a homogeneous group

Well, they're homogenous in that they have no desired for partnered sex, by definition.

[Tarfeather]

Well, from my perspective and probably that of many sexuals, there is a *huge* difference between someone who will never ever experience sexual attraction, and someone who will eventually experience a "satisfying" level of sexual attraction with the right partner.

I get what you're saying, but I can't help but disagree with the wording. I've always seen people say that Demis and Greys are welcomed under the ace umbrella and in the ace community, because they experience sexual attraction so infrequently they don't really fit in with the sexual side of the spectrum. Maybe it's just a matter of splitting hairs between what is meant by "spectrum" and "umbrella" though. "Squares are rectangles but rectangles are not squares" comes to mind. Asexuality is it's own thing, but at the same time I think people use a larger "ace" umbrella that includes demi and grey.

But that's just a confusing wording. It's like having the colour black, and then the "black umbrella" that includes shades of gray that are nearer to black than white, which happens to be a lot of gray. Experiencing sexual attraction "rarely" or "only under certain conditions" is not that uncommon among the sexual population, and as has already pointing out, calling that "asexual" would make people rightly question the validity of those who claim to experience no sexual attraction whatsoever.

[Meudwen]

Well, from my perspective and probably that of many sexuals, there is a *huge* difference between someone who will never ever experience sexual attraction, and someone who will eventually experience a "satisfying" level of sexual attraction with the right partner.

The trouble is, from what I've understood, even people who are Demi won't necessarily be aware whether they are Demi or not until they do find a person that they make a connection with, and start to feel sexual attraction to. That's why they fit better into a broader asexual umbrella, and as part of the asexual community, because for the vast majority of the time, they don't have sexual attraction to anyone, and that makes them a lot more relatable to "pure" asexuals than to sexuals who even semi-regularly feel sexual attraction to people. Unless Demis experiencing sexual attraction happens a lot more frequently than I understand.

I get what you're saying, but I can't help but disagree with the wording. I've always seen people say that Demis and Greys are welcomed under the ace umbrella and in the ace community, because they experience sexual attraction so infrequently they don't really fit in with the sexual side of the spectrum. Maybe it's just a matter of splitting hairs between what is meant by "spectrum" and "umbrella" though. "Squares are rectangles but rectangles are not squares" comes to mind. Asexuality is it's own thing, but at the same time I think people use a larger "ace" umbrella that includes demi and grey.

But that's just a confusing wording. It's like having the colour black, and then the "black umbrella" that includes shades of gray that are nearer to black than white, which happens to be a lot of gray. Experiencing sexual attraction "rarely" or "only under certain conditions" is not that uncommon among the sexual population, and as has already pointing out, calling that "asexual" would make people rightly question the validity of those who claim to experience no sexual attraction whatsoever.

Are you calling my wording confusing, or Star Bits? It is confusing, anyway, because sexuality is messy and it's always a spectrum and unique from each person to person. I just don't like the metaphor. In a white-to-black scale between perfectly asexual and non-asexual, the majority of that scale is going to be grey. It doesn't matter if it's a super light grey, or a super dark grey, it's grey. So the entire metaphor that asexuals are only the purest white just didn't sit right with me. How "pure" does that white have to be? Are sex-positive aces a more muddled white then? Are aces who don't have sex at all more pure "white" than aces who do choose to have sex? And once you're slightly muddled, you're not an asexual, because aces are 100% white, right? If you're sexually attracted to someone but don't act on it, do you no longer count? I see aces say you do, others say you don't. If you're attracted to someone just once, does that make you a demi or an ace? Technically it makes you demi, right? But wouldn't it be easier to just say you're asexual than get pushed out into another group because technically you no longer fit into the "pure white" asexual category? Exactly how infrequent do sexual attractions have to be before you go from "sexual" to "grey-sexual" to "grey-asexual"? In this metaphorical white-to-black scale, exactly, where in the light greys and mediums grays and super dark greys does anyone decide what the cut off point is between these categories, even for themselves?

That's why people say, if you feel like asexuality fits you, you're welcome to call yourself an ace. I really don't like the implication cropping up here that unless you've never experienced sexual attraction, not even once, you're not an asexual. For once, people confuse aesthetic and sensual with sexual attraction all the time. So someone experiences aesthetic attraction, and confuses it for sexual, and now they think they can't be asexual because asexual is strictly never? But at the same time, that person obviously won't fit in with the sexual side of the spectrum easily, because they don't belong there. And that entire affair about asexuals never experiencing sexual attraction will certainly be news for the people who've been reassured that asexual means "no desire for partnered sex", not "no sexual attraction ever", so suddenly people who do experience attraction but no desire to act on it or have partnered sex, don't fit into the ace crowd anymore? Granted, I know there are people in this forum who are split about the definition to begin with, so maybe they would be completely comfortable with telling those people they don't fit in.

All I'm saying is it's really very muddled and confusing. I don't think it's easy to just make a scale and say "this is it" because sexuality itself is so hard to quantify. Certainly, other people can't do it for you, and even individuals tend to get really confused about where they fit in. The idea that asexuals are 100% all-or-nothing bugs me too much to shut up about it. And the implication that demis and greys need to be othered from aces when I always understood they were welcome under a larger all-encompassing ace umbrella bugs me too. We're already minority enough without making people feel split off further. No they're literally not the same thing, I think that's well understood, just like "gay" and "lesbian" aren't the same thing but you can call them both "gay" and technically speaking it's not correct but they exist under the same umbrella. Again, squares and rectangles. Am I even making sense to anyone?

Sorry OP for derailing. I only couldn't resist speaking up bc the entire metaphor thing didn't sit right with me. But I can never explain myself very well either so I've probably made things worse. I agree with Star Bit's point 100% but the wording...really bugs me still. Especially "Asexuality isn't a spectrum; white isn't a spectrum." We might all be the same for not experiencing sexual attraction or desire for partnered sex, but even within that, the sexuality/attractions/etc or lack thereof is incredibly diverse, it's not a homogeneous experience.

Believe it or not, I was trying to prevent this from becoming a weird debate, but I guess now somehow I caused it to be one instead.

[Star Bit]

Demisexuals and sexuals alike are certainly welcome here, but that does not mean they are asexual.

Before a demisexual discovers they're demi, yes, there's nothing wrong with them idntifying as asexual, but once they know, no. If you're saying they should be able to identify as asexual because they know the strife, then no, it's like saying a bisexual person can be asexual because they know the invalidation BS they get for their orientation. No. Asexuality is a sexual orientation, not a club. Gray is a perfectly valid spectrum and there's nothing wrong with someone being on it. And the frequency in which a demisexual experiences the desire for sex also completely depends on the person. The term Asexual isn't literal; no sexual orientation is. Sexual orientations refer to who they desire to have sex with. Sex positive asexuals aren't anywhere near being "muddled"; they only view sex as a positive thing, they don't d e s i r e sex.

Yes, it is debated if people who experience sexual attraction but no desire to act count as asexual. In truth, they are Gray-A; they mentally xesire sex but not IRL, but since they desire to never act on it then I'm perfectly fine with them identifying as asexual because the remaining majority under Gray-A are sex maybes. It's like saying someone who's technically bi because they're attracted to both sexes, but has no desire to act on one of those biological sexes hast to identify as bi. No.