"Why I don't consider demi-sexuality as a valid sexual orientation."

[ace of planets]

Original Post is here.

Highlights:

• IT IS SLUT-SHAMING - Deep emotional connection is a societal requirement for women before they engage in sexual intercourse, otherwise they are sluts/whores. Demisexuality presents itself as an orientation that, unlike those slutty sexysexuals, they must form a deep emotional connection before they can engage in sexual intercourse, which brings me to…
  
• IT IGNORES BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY Most human beings feel more comfortable engaging in sexual intercourse with someone when they have a deep emotional connection with that someone.
  
• IT IS THE SOCIETAL DEFAULT/DESIRED SEXUALITY FOR WOMEN Society constantly informs women that unless they’re have a deep emotional connection with their partner, they should not be having sex, otherwise they’re sluts. To base an entire orientation on this premise, as if it were an exception instead of the desired norm, reeks of ‘special snowflake syndrome’.
  

"I can’t bear to call myself such a misogynistic, self-aggrandizing, meaningless label."

Thank you for attempting to completely invalidate what I am.

Here's the thing. You can't tell me who I am, what I feel about other people, what I am, what I call myself, etc. If I wish to call myself "the great dykosaurus-rex," and you don't like it, you can kiss my ass. I am not this way due to society, and I'm not sorry you don't like it.

To summarize: FUCK YOU.

[Cerise]

Um, I think you missed a point.

[R_1]

It's a subset of a sexual orientation label.

[henshin]

I dunno, I think the post is pretty interesting actually. I had a conversation with a friend of mine recently and she was like "what do you think most sexual people feel? we don't go all go around just wanting sex with anyone" the point being that she doesn't want to have sex with someone unless she is in a relationship with them first, or at least emotionally attached, and I'd guess theres a lot of people that feel that way.

How is that different from demisexuality?

Not trying to attack here, or invalidate anyone's identity, but I think its an interesting discussion.

[Lucinda]

Why is this all about females?? Are there no "demi-sexual" guys?? How 'bout the dude that joined last night?

Lucinda

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

I want to reach through my laptop screen and punch this woman right in her bitch face.

Good GOD, who does she think she is?! I mean, I'll be brutally honest here - I engaged in more slut shaming BEFORE I started identifying as demisexual, and that was simply because I didn't really understand what sexuality, as a whole, was all about (I'm now of the opinion that, as long as you're not hurting anyone, you can do whatever sexual things you like). And she has no idea how we actually feel on the inside - she can at least look at a guy walking past and briefly think "Ooh, I'd hit that," no matter how brief the thought is. She has no idea what it's like to delude yourself into thinking that because you don't want to bone someone, you don't actually love them. She has NO. IDEA. WHATSOEVER.

And besides, surely it would be misogynistic to say that I, as a woman, can't identify with a sexuality that I believe fits me?

[Sasan-Gir]

Why is this all about females?? Are there no "demi-sexual" guys?? How 'bout the dude that joined last night?

Lucinda

It seems to me that whoever wrote that post is only reinforcing 60 year old stereotypes.

[leeleekitty]

THIS MAKES ME ANGRY! It's not "slut-shaming"! In my opinion, sluts are people who have no self-control over who they have sex with. They just want it. Non-sluts are people who have more self-control. And then demi-sexuals don't need as much self-control because there is no desire! Totally different subjects! Just... ARGH ANGER!

[Wineblood]

Skimmed it, but it does seem like a load of angry ranting and no much information. And it is mostly aimed at women, as someone pointed out. I'm a dude and I'm demisexual, am I slut shaming too?

I suppose there's not much point arguing with some people, unless you actually like headaches.

[Guest Invisible Pumpkin]

Why I know I'm demisexual? Because yes, I do need to have a very deep emotional connection before engaging in any kind of sexual activity, but the point it's that I do rarely experience primary sexual attraction. While some heterosexual women could be willing to meet a sexy/hot/attractive men, I could be indifferent, intimidated or even repulsed to them.

[weathered fair]

This kind of thing happens a lot, I feel. I remember I witnessed a little argument on the internet a while back that said that bisexuality was inherently transphobic because it reinforced the idea of a gender binary. And there's the age old debate of, "Hey, why don't white people have their own history month?" Anything, no matter how innocuous, can be seen as a threat by someone else.

I think thisis kind of relevant, and definitely awesome.

[Philip027]

So basically, it isn't a valid orientation because "most human beings" are already like that?

Huh. I guess heterosexuality isn't valid either, based on that logic.

[Alter-Echo]

Huh...it's my basic understanding that most humans are rather promiscus, and will screw anything with a hole (or a pole) and a heartbeat, but I could be wrong....

[ily]

So basically, it isn't a valid orientation because "most human beings" are already like that?

Huh. I guess heterosexuality isn't valid either, based on that logic.

This is an awesome response. :D

I don't understand the anti-demisexuality logic. Demisexuals aren't telling anyone who to have sex with, they're just describing their own experiences. And demis are certainly capable of having sex with people they're not in love with. They just won't be sexually attracted to these people.

There's also a difference between sexual attraction and wanting to have sex. You can be sexually attracted to someone, but still decide that having sex with them is not a good idea, maybe because you're not in a relationship and maybe for other reasons. If a lot of non-demisexuals could be defined as demi...so what? They don't have to identify as demi if it doesn't resonate with them.

Also, dykeasaurus rex sounds like a pretty awesome orientation to me.

[Faelights]

So basically, it isn't a valid orientation because "most human beings" are already like that?

Huh. I guess heterosexuality isn't valid either, based on that logic.

<3

[Guest]

So basically, it isn't a valid orientation because "most human beings" are already like that?

Huh. I guess heterosexuality isn't valid either, based on that logic.

<3

Fae stole my response :P so I'm just gonna say ^THIS

[henshin]

THIS MAKES ME ANGRY! It's not "slut-shaming"! In my opinion, sluts are people who have no self-control over who they have sex with. They just want it. Non-sluts are people who have more self-control. And then demi-sexuals don't need as much self-control because there is no desire! Totally different subjects! Just... ARGH ANGER!

Woah there! hi. Can you not with the talk about 'sluts'? Calling someone that is just personal prejudice about other people's sexual behaviour.

If you have no control over who you have sex with thats rape.

[Guest]

So basically, it isn't a valid orientation because "most human beings" are already like that?

Huh. I guess heterosexuality isn't valid either, based on that logic.

<3

Fae stole my response :P so I'm just gonna say ^THIS

Really? So you're now of the opinion that demi-sexuality is the norm, the majority? That seems like a rather sudden shift in opinion from AVEN.

[Guest]

Where did I say that demisexuality was the majority? All I said was that I agreed with Phil. Just because somebody says an orientation is the majority doesn't make it any less of an orientation.

[Meph]

Original Post is here.

Highlights:

• IT IS SLUT-SHAMING - Deep emotional connection is a societal requirement for women before they engage in sexual intercourse, otherwise they are sluts/whores. Demisexuality presents itself as an orientation that, unlike those slutty sexysexuals, they must form a deep emotional connection before they can engage in sexual intercourse, which brings me to…
  
• IT IGNORES BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY Most human beings feel more comfortable engaging in sexual intercourse with someone when they have a deep emotional connection with that someone.
  
• IT IS THE SOCIETAL DEFAULT/DESIRED SEXUALITY FOR WOMEN Society constantly informs women that unless they’re have a deep emotional connection with their partner, they should not be having sex, otherwise they’re sluts. To base an entire orientation on this premise, as if it were an exception instead of the desired norm, reeks of ‘special snowflake syndrome’.
  

"I can’t bear to call myself such a misogynistic, self-aggrandizing, meaningless label."

Thank you for attempting to completely invalidate what I am.

Here's the thing. You can't tell me who I am, what I feel about other people, what I am, what I call myself, etc. If I wish to call myself "the great dykosaurus-rex," and you don't like it, you can kiss my ass. I am not this way due to society, and I'm not sorry you don't like it.

To summarize: FUCK YOU.

Umm... You seem like a rude person. Also, I don't know in which decade you live but in the 10's apparently blind sexysexuals that sex their lives with sexy meaningless sex is the sexiest normal sexual way to sexually engage in sexy sex. Your view of how people interact sexually is distorted, and everyone is expected to have sex, except by their parents.

This is to whoever wrote that article, and to the person that said "fuck you".

[Guest]

This is to whoever wrote that article, and to the person that said "fuck you".

I really like the way your mind works, Josue.

[Sally]

THIS MAKES ME ANGRY! It's not "slut-shaming"! In my opinion, sluts are people who have no self-control over who they have sex with. They just want it. Non-sluts are people who have more self-control. And then demi-sexuals don't need as much self-control because there is no desire! Totally different subjects! Just... ARGH ANGER!

Woah there! hi. Can you not with the talk about 'sluts'? Calling someone that is just personal prejudice about other people's sexual behaviour.

If you have no control over who you have sex with thats rape.

Just to add another disagreement, rape is when the other person says "no". It doesn't matter who you try it with.

[Cazz333]

Normal sexual who needs deep emotional connection:

Meets perdon does not want sex but finds something appealing, perhaps very slight sexual attraction

|

forms connection over time

|

primary and secondary sexual attraction for that specific person comes into play

Demisexual:

Meets person, like them as a friend and/or finds them romantically attractive but is in a non-sexual way

|

forns connevtion over time

|

has secondary sexual attraction with that person not primary as well. Mainly asexual with that person but with some sexual inclinations.

[PiF]

I clicked the link.... Saw tumblr... Didn't read any more..proves my point about tumblr just being the facebook update

[Ardy]

THIS MAKES ME ANGRY! It's not "slut-shaming"! In my opinion, sluts are people who have no self-control over who they have sex with. They just want it. Non-sluts are people who have more self-control. And then demi-sexuals don't need as much self-control because there is no desire! Totally different subjects! Just... ARGH ANGER!

Woah there! hi. Can you not with the talk about 'sluts'? Calling someone that is just personal prejudice about other people's sexual behaviour.

If you have no control over who you have sex with thats rape.

Just to add another disagreement, rape is when the other person says "no". It doesn't matter who you try it with.

Uh, not quite. Rape is when the other person doesn't say "YES!" genuinely and enthusiastically.

[Cirdan]

Erm just because one person hasn't said yes genuinely and enthusiastically does not mean it is rape. In my mind rape is when one person knowingly and willingly engages in sexual intercourse (specifically vaginal or anal) with another person while being aware that they have refused or are unable to give consent. Consent may be as obvious as an enthusiastic yes, but equally it may be implied. Whether it is implied or explicit consent can of course be withdrawn at any time.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

Erm just because one person hasn't said yes genuinely and enthusiastically does not mean it is rape. In my mind rape is when one person knowingly and willingly engages in sexual intercourse (specifically vaginal or anal) with another person while being aware that they have refused or are unable to give consent. Consent may be as obvious as an enthusiastic yes, but equally it may be implied. Whether it is implied or explicit consent can of course be withdrawn at any time.

I think it's the idea that it might be immoral to sleep with someone who gave an unenthusiastic "maybe", or someone who, while technically consenting, doesn't seem to enjoy it or be that interested in what's happening. Basically, if the person said yes, but they seem upset or withdrawn during the sex, then something is CLEARLY not right, and the best thing to do is stop and ask them what's wrong. Sex is something that's meant to be enjoyable to both people involved, and it shouldn't be all about one person - so if one of the people involved isn't that into it, it's not really worth pursuing it. I think that's what ARCHINEER meant.

[Cirdan]

Sex is something that's meant to be enjoyable to both people involved, and it shouldn't be all about one person - so if one of the people involved isn't that into it, it's not really worth pursuing it. I think that's what ARCHINEER meant.

Which is a very valid point in itself, but shouldn't be confused with rape. There are asexual-sexual couples who might have sex purely for the benefit of the sexual - the rest of the relationship can make it worthwhile.

[Guest]

I assumed ACHINEER was being facetious.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

Sex is something that's meant to be enjoyable to both people involved, and it shouldn't be all about one person - so if one of the people involved isn't that into it, it's not really worth pursuing it. I think that's what ARCHINEER meant.

Which is a very valid point in itself, but shouldn't be confused with rape. There are asexual-sexual couples who might have sex purely for the benefit of the sexual - the rest of the relationship can make it worthwhile.

Yeah, but do you see my point? Let's say I were to sleep with a boy, and his consent was weak at best. The entire time, I'm enjoying myself, but he's looking furtive, closed off and almost fearful. He's clearly not having a good time, and he's clearly not happy - would it not be immoral for me to keep going? I mean, if I do stop and ask, it could just be that he's shy and not used to it. On the other hand, it could be that his consent wasn't given as much as I thought it was, and that he was uncomfortable with what we were doing and didn't know how to break it to me that he wanted to stop. If it's the former, then fair enough - but if it's the latter, then I'd be raping him without really knowing. Do you see what I mean?

And I kind of think that sex could perhaps be tailored for an asexual-sexual relationship - you know, so that both of them can enjoy it to some degree. While it would be for the sexual's sake, I don't see why it has to be miserable for the asexual involved.