Jump to content

i feel like "reverse demisexual"


Bridence

Recommended Posts

Hey I wonder whether or not someone else feels like this about sexual stuff. When I came across these forums few months back I kinda thought I’m asexual maybe demisexual but as I read more about this and sexuality in general and actually started going out more I realised my experiences differ. With my current knowledge and experiences I’d label myself as "sexual indifferent asexual" so whenever I see a girl (lets say online/in town/bar..) I’d have no problem if she wanted to get intimate I’d be like „yeah whatever if thats what you want“ but on other hand it goes against my believes that you should know said person at some level before engaging in said activites. But the more I know said girl the more this is a „hell no“ to a point that for example with my current uni classmates (which is probably my biggest social circle it’s like 15 girls) I literally can’t even imagine something like that. It would be just so wierd/awkward I’d decline anything even closely related to being sexual on spot. So I’m in this circle where I feel like I shouldn’t get intimate with someone I don’t know but when I actually get to know them it just gets awkward.. It’s like I’m friendzoing every single girl I meet and that would check out for two reasons I have more girl-friends than guy-friends, I have never been in a relationship and I think it's related to this (but thats maybe a bit too TMI for my taste atm)
Anyone with similar experiences?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like fraysexuality / frayromanticism to me.

Fraysexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction to others inversely proportional to their familiarity with said person. The sexual attraction decreases as they become more emotionally involved. (opposite of demisexual)

From the A/Sexuality Lexicon

Also, this thread has been moved from Asexual Q&A to The Gray Area, Sex and Related Discussions.

Nai

Asexual Q&A Co-Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean, you'd have sex as long as you don't know her well (and if that didn't go against your beliefs) but become more uncomfortable with the idea of sex the better you get to know her? ... That's actually sort of common, hence why so many people have one night stands, and how labels like ''player'' came into existence. People fine to have sex as long as no emotional bond is present, but totally not interested as soon as any sort of friendship or whatever develops. Maybe I read you wrong though?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like fraysexuality / frayromanticism to me.

Fraysexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction to others inversely proportional to their familiarity with said person. The sexual attraction decreases as they become more emotionally involved. (opposite of demisexual)

From the A/Sexuality Lexicon

Also, this thread has been moved from Asexual Q&A to The Gray Area, Sex and Related Discussions.

Nai

Asexual Q&A Co-Moderator

Yeah I don't like either of those terms because they describe something pretty common (like, more common than people would want to admit) ..

A *lot* of people lose attraction (romantic and/or sexual) once they become closer to a person, because it's often about the ''the thrill of the chase''.. once they chase is over... it's boring. (That's not an intentional, conscious choice, it's actually rooted in human psychology, like to keep the gene pool varied it's better to only have initial interest, have sex, then move on to the next person, something like that aha)

Obviously it's not like that for everyone, but it *is* common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reverse of demisexual is known as fraysexual :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean, you'd have sex as long as you don't know her well (and if that didn't go against your beliefs) but become more uncomfortable with the idea of sex the better you get to know her? ... That's actually sort of common, hence why so many people have one night stands, and how labels like ''player'' came into existence. People fine to have sex as long as no emotional bond is present, but totally not interested as soon as any sort of friendship or whatever develops. Maybe I read you wrong though?

Hmm lets me say it like this. I'd consider having sex with unknown person (from their incentive) but with known person it's not even in consideration. But im still indifferent to sex and I wouldnt be the one starting anything thats for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like fraysexuality / frayromanticism to me.

Fraysexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction to others inversely proportional to their familiarity with said person. The sexual attraction decreases as they become more emotionally involved. (opposite of demisexual)

From the A/Sexuality Lexicon

Also, this thread has been moved from Asexual Q&A to The Gray Area, Sex and Related Discussions.

Nai

Asexual Q&A Co-Moderator

Yeah I don't like either of those terms because they describe something pretty common (like, more common than people would want to admit) ..

A *lot* of people lose attraction (romantic and/or sexual) once they become closer to a person, because it's often about the ''the thrill of the chase''.. once they chase is over... it's boring. (That's not an intentional, conscious choice, it's actually rooted in human psychology, like to keep the gene pool varied it's better to only have initial interest, have sex, then move on to the next person, something like that aha)

Obviously it's not like that for everyone, but it *is* common.

Oops, I thought the OP was looking for a term. I agree that it's really common though. I don't really use the more obscure terms since they're either way too specific or so common that a term really shouldn't be necessary.

Don't worry OP, a lot of people feel the same as you do, so you shouldn't worry about it. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe girls you know just aren't your type? I know I met a lot of people who I wanted to be friends or even more with, but then I get to know them better and it turned out they have a lot of traits that are

200_s.gif

and I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean, you'd have sex as long as you don't know her well (and if that didn't go against your beliefs) but become more uncomfortable with the idea of sex the better you get to know her? ... That's actually sort of common, hence why so many people have one night stands, and how labels like ''player'' came into existence. People fine to have sex as long as no emotional bond is present, but totally not interested as soon as any sort of friendship or whatever develops. Maybe I read you wrong though?

Hmm lets me say it like this. I'd consider having sex with unknown person (from their incentive) but with known person it's not even in consideration. But im still indifferent to sex and I wouldnt be the one starting anything thats for sure.

I think that might fit within the grey area. It's similar to my experience, in that I've had sex when opportunities came up just because sex is something people do that's supposed to be interesting. I have no interest in sex most of the time, especially not with anyone I know. It's not sexual attraction or desire for me, and it sounds like it might be similar for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but this sounds totally reasonable to me if one were asexual or (particularly) aromantic. When I just want to get laid, I prefer it with strangers too because you don't have to deal with their feelings, and you don't have to pretend it's some big deal.

As a blanket statement, I think AVEN is far too concerned with people's conscious decisions (not orientation) and not enough with their feelings/ subconscious desires (orientation). But that's just me.

That sounds like fraysexuality / frayromanticism to me.

Fraysexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction to others inversely proportional to their familiarity with said person. The sexual attraction decreases as they become more emotionally involved. (opposite of demisexual)

From the A/Sexuality Lexicon

Also, this thread has been moved from Asexual Q&A to The Gray Area, Sex and Related Discussions.

Nai

Asexual Q&A Co-Moderator

Yeah I don't like either of those terms because they describe something pretty common (like, more common than people would want to admit) ..

A *lot* of people lose attraction (romantic and/or sexual) once they become closer to a person, because it's often about the ''the thrill of the chase''.. once they chase is over... it's boring. (That's not an intentional, conscious choice, it's actually rooted in human psychology, like to keep the gene pool varied it's better to only have initial interest, have sex, then move on to the next person, something like that aha)

Obviously it's not like that for everyone, but it *is* common.

Incredibly common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but this sounds totally reasonable to me if one were asexual or (particularly) aromantic. When I just want to get laid, I prefer it with strangers too because you don't have to deal with their feelings, and you don't have to pretend it's some big deal.

As a blanket statement, I think AVEN is far too concerned with people's conscious decisions (not orientation) and not enough with their feelings/ subconscious desires (orientation). But that's just me.

I guess I just don't see why an asexual would want to have sex with a stranger they meet, if they know they are ''asexual'' and have no interest in sex. I had sex when I was trying to ''force'' myself to be normal, but I didn't know about asexuality and I never wanted the sex, I literally had to force myself to do it and hated every second of it.. like I had to grit my teeth and just wait it out for it to be over. It just seems if you have no interest in it and someone you don't know is offering, and you know you don't want it but also know you are ace... why on earth would you have it? It seems no different than a sexual person having sex with a stranger because it's convenient? Like ''oh meh, may as well because it's being offered'' ...Not all sexual people have sex on the mind all the time, maybe they just went out for drinks and the opportunity for sex presented itself (but even then I have known plenty of sexuals to turn it down) so I don't know. Having no interest in sex is obviously an asexual trait, but having/wanting to have sex with a stranger because it is on offer, as long as you don't ''know'' them (despite having no interest in having sex apparently?).. just seems like a sexual with very little drive to initiate sex, and also who is uncomfortable having sex with people they are close to, which I have met quite a few sexual people like that (who only want sex with people they don't know and get bored as soon as they get to know the person at all)

Obviously asexuals often still force themselves to have sex with strangers, trying to force themselves to ''fit in'' or ''look normal'' but I am hearing ''sure I want it if it's offered I just won't initiate and it can only be with someone I don't know'' and that is what the OP is feeling guilty over? which to me, ''wanting it'' (regardless of whether or not you have interest in initiating) suggests innate sexuality, not asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously asexuals often still force themselves to have sex with strangers, trying to force themselves to ''fit in'' or ''look normal'' but I am hearing ''sure I want it if it's offered I just won't initiate and it can only be with someone I don't know'' and that is what the OP is feeling guilty over? which to me, ''wanting it'' (regardless of whether or not you have interest in initiating) suggests innate sexuality, not asexuality.

It could go either way, yeah, depending on the motivation and needs/desires it meets or purposes it serves. There's "wanting it" in the "sure, this meets my criteria" way, which seems sexual to me, and there's "wanting it" in the "I'm going to push myself to prove I'm capable" way, which could very well be asexual if that is the only reason the person ever goes along with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but this sounds totally reasonable to me if one were asexual or (particularly) aromantic. When I just want to get laid, I prefer it with strangers too because you don't have to deal with their feelings, and you don't have to pretend it's some big deal.

As a blanket statement, I think AVEN is far too concerned with people's conscious decisions (not orientation) and not enough with their feelings/ subconscious desires (orientation). But that's just me.

Obviously asexuals often still force themselves to have sex with strangers, trying to force themselves to ''fit in'' or ''look normal'' but I am hearing ''sure I want it if it's offered I just won't initiate and it can only be with someone I don't know'' and that is what the OP is feeling guilty over? which to me, ''wanting it'' (regardless of whether or not you have interest in initiating) suggests innate sexuality, not asexuality.

I was thinking more in terms of... good story, or to keep friends off your back or something. Like, given the two choices, I could see a random stranger being preferable to someone they're close to. I have no point of experience to even understand where the OP is coming from, so I was making a more general comment... I really can't tell if he desires sex, if he's romantically repulsed and that's the issue, if he's ever had sex and is basing this on actual experience... etc. It sounds like he's saying that despite never partaking in sex, it'd be easier for him to do it with a stranger. Which makes sense to me. If he wants the sex but just feels guilty because of morals, then yeah, that's just being sexual with guilt issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously asexuals often still force themselves to have sex with strangers, trying to force themselves to ''fit in'' or ''look normal'' but I am hearing ''sure I want it if it's offered I just won't initiate and it can only be with someone I don't know'' and that is what the OP is feeling guilty over? which to me, ''wanting it'' (regardless of whether or not you have interest in initiating) suggests innate sexuality, not asexuality.

It could go either way, yeah, depending on the motivation and needs/desires it meets or purposes it serves. There's "wanting it" in the "sure, this meets my criteria" way, which seems sexual to me, and there's "wanting it" in the "I'm going to push myself to prove I'm capable" way, which could very well be asexual if that is the only reason the person ever goes along with it.

Oh yeah definitely, if it's just about trying to prove you are capable (or forcing yourself to be ''normal'' or whatever) then that's ''a desire to prove you are capable by having sex with this stranger'' as opposed to ''a desire to have sex with this person because this person has offered sex'' it just seems if the OP is feeling guilty over wanting to get intimate with women they don't know (because morally they think you should know the person/be in a relationship, but they have no interest in that context) that there is more of a ''want'' there, as opposed to ''well I'm not interested, this is against my morals, I couldn't care less about having sex with this person... but somehow I feel guilty because it seems more morally acceptable to only have sex once in a relationship, but I just have no interest in that at all'' .. seems more like they are saying they do want the sex on some level, because it's being offered, they could also just happily pass it off and definitely wouldn't initiate it themselves, which again, sexual people can be just like that. I could have read the situation wrong though of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but this sounds totally reasonable to me if one were asexual or (particularly) aromantic. When I just want to get laid, I prefer it with strangers too because you don't have to deal with their feelings, and you don't have to pretend it's some big deal.

As a blanket statement, I think AVEN is far too concerned with people's conscious decisions (not orientation) and not enough with their feelings/ subconscious desires (orientation). But that's just me.

Obviously asexuals often still force themselves to have sex with strangers, trying to force themselves to ''fit in'' or ''look normal'' but I am hearing ''sure I want it if it's offered I just won't initiate and it can only be with someone I don't know'' and that is what the OP is feeling guilty over? which to me, ''wanting it'' (regardless of whether or not you have interest in initiating) suggests innate sexuality, not asexuality.

I was thinking more in terms of... good story, or to keep friends off your back or something. Like, given the two choices, I could see a random stranger being preferable to someone they're close to. I have no point of experience to even understand where the OP is coming from, so I was making a more general comment... I really can't tell if he desires sex, if he's romantically repulsed and that's the issue, if he's ever had sex and is basing this on actual experience... etc. It sounds like he's saying that despite never partaking in sex, it'd be easier for him to do it with a stranger. Which makes sense to me. If he wants the sex but just feels guilty because of morals, then yeah, that's just being sexual with guilt issues.

Yeah exactly that. I don't know enough of the story either so was just going off what I read here and made my judgments based on that (and I could have interpreted it completely wrong) But you're right if it's the first that could definitely be asexual. The second, just a sexual with guilt issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like the OP is guided by morals plus aromanticism plus perhaps a low libido if that drive doesn't affect his morality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That could be many different things. Do you actually experience sexual attraction to these strangers, or is it more of a "I don't really care what happens either way?" Either way, I do think you probably fall somewhere on the aromantic scale and that, combined with your morals, is somehow affecting the sexual aspect of your attraction.

On a side note: I define "fray" a bit differently. For me, it's not in direct proportion to how emotionally close I am to someone. I can know someone for years, be really good friends with them and harboring a crush that developed and grew stronger the more I got to know them. Then one of us acts on it, flirting starts to happen, they hold my hand, maybe we kiss, ect and I get really excited that things are happening... then my feelings disappear. What once was a bubbly crush suddenly becomes an annoyance and I just want us to be friends again and am cursing myself for ever letting myself start this when I knew this was going to happen. Nothing about them or how well I know them has changed. The only thing that's different is the type of relationship it is, going from friends to lovers.

But the idea of starting to date someone that you like only to like them less as you get to know them? (Or to become less sexually attracted to them as you get to know them) That sounds like dating to me, when you're getting to know someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...