Conflicting definitions of demisexuality

[skepa]

I've been doing some research into what demisexuality is as well as how I might fit into the picture, I've come across multiple definitions and many of them actually seem to contradict one another:

 

One version of demisexuality is the primary vs secondary attraction model listed here:

http://wiki.asexuality.org/Primary_vs._secondary_sexual_attraction_model

 

I pretty much fit squarely under demisexual in this model, The idea of someone being hot or sexy, is completely foreign and alien to me, people are as sexually appealing as chairs or bricks, regardless of me being in a relation ship or not. However I do get sexually aroused with intimate situations (which I believe I would classify under the secondary sexual attraction?). Thus this model seems to be able to differentiate my sexual orientation vs others.

 

However the definition of demisexuality in the "official"  What is 'Sexual attraction' post is defined as follows (https://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/69810-what-is-sexual-attraction/):

 

so in a room a sexual, a demi/semy/grey, a repressed sexual and an asexual all see the above picture and say

sexual...I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse
demi/semi/grey...I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse..as long as i knew her well enough first and i liked her
repressed sexual...I aint looking
asexual..ooo nice bed linen

 

which I would fit under the asexual definition as listed above. i.e. sexual attraction in the above summary seems to correlate more with the primary sexual attraction in the first model, something which I completely lack. I shall note that the primary vs secondary model has been debated online, it also seems that at least from what I've seen the definition of sexual attraction is somewhat leaning more towards the definition in the 'sexual attraction' post.

 

The point of this being that there are multiple definitions for demisexuality, and it is very easy to be confused, likewise there is an ever growing amount of new terms popping up all the time: (https://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/123256-asexuality-sexual-orientation-lexicon-read-me/?tab=comments#comment-1061345333)

 

My proposal would be to focus not on individual terms and sexualities but group everything under one asexual minorities term, when asked what orientation you are you could either say, I'm an asexual (as being apart of the asexual spectrum) or I'm an asexual who is attracted to <"description of what type of asexual you are">. This is a much simpler system to understand and to identify with, and also makes the term asexual more widely known as well, rather than throwing new terms that many don't understand i.e. "I'm a Proquusexual which means....". Plus grouping all of these labels under one terms promotes a better sense of unity, family, and community rather than separation and labels, which can never fully describe a person anyway, and may lead to confusion as evidenced from above.

 

I'm also inclined to just identify as asexual since it seems like I fit better under what seems like the officially posted definition rather than the older primary vs secondary attraction model. Which means that a portion of the people that used to identify with the older demisexual term, may have been absorbed by the new and broader asexual term, as specifically defined by the now more well defined sexual attraction. I don't think this is by coincidence. I feel like the term asexual may continue to grow to include more individuals, and the above proposal is more of the final conclusion of the expanding term, as well as it allows us all to be seen, heard and respected more by those still unknown to asexuality.

 

thanks for listening!!

[Maz]

The examples with the picture don't make much sense altogether. Persons 1+2 are just sexuals with different behavioural preferences, person 3 is someone who doesn't like erotica/porn (could be any orientation really) and person 4 obviously has problems with his eyes...or some issue with directing his attention.

If we think of demisexuality not only as a preference but as an orientation or something similar to an orientation then a demisexual per definition cannot know whether he wants to have sex with someone he only sees in a picture. Because if he knew that would mean he already experiences sexual attraction or desire for sex and then he is a totally normal sexual.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, skepa said:

sexual...I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse
demi/semi/grey...I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse..as long as i knew her well enough first and i liked her

No, sorry, that's completely incorrect

 

While SOME sexual people might see an attractive looking person and think 'I want to bang her', they're actually in the minority. It's very, very normal, and very common, for sexual people (even many hypersexual people) to need to know someone and like their personality/who they are as a person, before they actively want to take it to actual sex with that person. SOME sexual people enjoy casual sex with people they don't know, and can want to bang strangers on site, but that's a personality thing (like, personal preferences) not something intrinsic to being sexual.

 

The simplest way to look at it is like this -

 

Sexual person: desires sexual intimacy with certain people under certain circumstances for sexual and/or emotional pleasure

 

Asexual: No desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure

 

Demisexual: desires partnered sexual contact once they have developed an emotional bond with another person, but these bonds take a very long time to form and happen quite rarely. A demisexual person is also 'functionally asexual' outside of that close romantic bond. This is the only definition of demisexual that makes demisexuals slightly rarer than other types of sexual people, because for most people who require some kind of bond it happens a lot faster, and they still know they're actively looking for a sexually intimate partner who they're in love when they're single. Whereas a demisexual isn't specifically seeking a romantic partner for sexual intimacy. There are of course other definitions, but almost all of them describe your totally normal, average sexual person (like your definition above) which is why I kind of think the label is a bit useless personally. I'd probably be 'demisexual' (I'm not asexual) but even then, I don't feel I need a specific label to 'identify' that I'm a bit, er, 'different' sexually. I do have to say though that demisexual isn't asexual, as someone who is demisexual does desire that sexual contact under some circumstances (or experiences sexual attraction, however you want to define it). A-sexual means NEVER you never desire that contact/experience that attraction (well, the 'A' means without, so you're without that desire or attraction - if you experience it sometimes then the 'A' becomes invalid!)

 

So anyway, in conclusion, there are asexuals (who never desire sex with other people for pleasure) and sexuals (everyone else) and sometimes some people fall in a foggy area in the middle called the 'grey' area. I think that sums it all up in the best way possible personally!!!

 

DISCLAIMER: I am not saying anyone can't personally identify as asexual,  people can call themselves a fluffy pink banana if they want and I can't stop them, haha.. I'm just saying that 'desiring sexual intimacy when I know and like someone' is... er, normal.

 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Maz said:

If we think of demisexuality not only as a preference but as an orientation or something similar to an orientation then a demisexual per definition cannot know whether he wants to have sex with someone he only sees in a picture. Because if he knew that would mean he already experiences sexual attraction or desire for sex and then he is a totally normal sexual.

And he's still a totally normal sexual even if he needs to get to know the person (and like her) before he can actually start wanting sex with her  Hence why I think demisexal is not a very useful label the way it's most commonly defined around here!

[Maz]

The term demisexual only makes sense to me if sexual desire/attraction towards someone are nonexistent until a close relationship is formed. If it's just about (consciously) wanting sex only if a relationship exists, then it's nothing more than a personal preference. So someone who can tell with a high degree of certainty whether or not he would want to have sex with someone before he is in a close personal relationship with that person can't be demisexual.

[roland.o]

People have tried to grasp demisexuality for years, and come up with different attempts at definitions, to the best of their knowledge at the time. I learned about the term about a year ago, and came across three relevant definitions so far:

1. primary/secondary attraction. That seems to be the oldest, and has been replaced by...

2. strong emotional bond. Some people object to this and prefer...

3. abnormally long time.

I'm undecided between 2 and 3. And I don't need to decide, because I fit both

 

That picture thing was somebody's humorous attempt at illustrating some differences. It's not a definition at all.

 

On 3/17/2018 at 5:52 PM, skepa said:

My proposal would be to focus not on individual terms and sexualities but group everything under one asexual minorities term

We already have "The Gray Area". But what is your goal with this proposal? To form an army under a uniting flag? Or to help people come to terms with themselves?

 

The primary value of the many labels, in my view, is that they give the people who adopt them a sense of not being alone, a reassurance that there are others who tick the same way. Enough of those to come up with a label. That's exactly what "demisexuality" did for me. And that's what other labels do for other people.

 

Your suggestion, however, does the exact opposite. It declares a category of "others". And if I don't fit into the major categories of (hetero/homo/bi)sexual and asexual, I'd be just that... someone who doesn't fit. And you're telling me I should declare myself a member of an assorted "minorities" group, not worthy to be distinguished from people with a completely different experience of their sexuality? No thanks, not interested.

[skepa]

2 minutes ago, roland.o said:

We already have "The Gray Area". But what is your goal with this proposal? To form an army under a uniting flag? Or to help people come to terms with themselves?

Yeah I've been discussing more of this in the other thread I have open, so it might be good to respond there: www.asexuality.org/en/topic/168920-my-thoughts-on-sexual-attraction-and-demisexuality/

 

But I think you might be right, people want to be differentiated. When I started this thread I didn't realize there were so many different interpretations of asexual terms.

 

The current idea I'm thinking about is to view the term asexual as a lack of some sexual aspect of the brain, which works better under the assumption that there are multiple types of sexual attractions.

 

So the idea is you could have attraction-blind, sex/desire-blind or attraction/sex blind asexuality, which I think is a helpful description of the person. the pros and cons of this model can be discussed.

 

ButI suppose comments should be reserved for the other thread.

[roland.o]

 

3 minutes ago, skepa said:

Yeah I've been discussing more of this in the other thread I have open, so it might be good to respond there

I don't have the time to read all the threads on AVEN. If you've opened duplicate threads in different sub-forums, please ask the moderators to merge them.

 

2 minutes ago, skepa said:

The current idea I'm thinking about is to view the term asexual as a lack of some sexual aspect of the brain

Two problems with that:

1. Asexuals - those who do not feel sexual attraction/desire at all - will give you fire for trying to re-appropriate their label.

2. "lack of" has a very negative connotation, you'll get fire for that as well.

 

I've seen too many definition debates on AVEN already, and you've started this one off on the wrong foot. So I'm tuning out at this point

[Naathys]

On 3/17/2018 at 3:46 PM, Maz said:

The term demisexual only makes sense to me if sexual desire/attraction towards someone are nonexistent until a close relationship is formed. If it's just about (consciously) wanting sex only if a relationship exists, then it's nothing more than a personal preference. So someone who can tell with a high degree of certainty whether or not he would want to have sex with someone before he is in a close personal relationship with that person can't be demisexual.

That actually describes me pretty well. Most of my relationships have been with people that I had absolutely no interest in other than as friends and then suddenly ended up developing an attraction, much later. I've never had any sort of sexual attraction towards someone I didn't know. I generally find myself wanting to get to know people because I find them fascinating, or charismatic. Once I know them well enough, I may want a romantic connection and if it's reciprocated, it MAY turn into sexual attraction. Long and sometimes frustrating process, especially as one gets older and people get less and less patient.