I don’t like the way demisexuality is typically defined

[Telecaster68]

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

If someone is identifying as asexual based on a complete misunderstanding of how normal sexual people function that doesn't mean we are arguing with asexuals as to how asexuality should be defined. We're arguing about how aces (like Pramana and some others here) are mistakenly defining sexuality. That's the issue.

Though to be rigorous about it, the two definitions are interdependent. You can't define sexuality without affecting what asexuality is and vice versa, as your post just demonstrated. Asexuals will be always know better what a complete absence of wanting partnered sex feels, but they'll never know what it feels like to sometimes want partnered sex (for their own reasons, rather than relationship maintenance or pregnancy etc). Sexuals know that, and they also are able to contrast it with situations where they don't want sex - because they're not attracted to someone, they're the wrong gender, for instance. Given that knowledge, I think there is at least an argument that sexuals are able to have more holistic grip on both definitions than asexuals, especially those who've never been in a sexual relationship. I'm not saying they get the everything about the picture better, but they do have a wider experience, of both experiencing sexual attraction and not experiencing sexual attraction. Asexuals have only not experienced sexual attraction. 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I think there is at least an argument that sexuals are able to have more holistic grip on both definitions than asexuals, especially those who've never been in a sexual relationship. I'm not saying they get the everything about the picture better, but they do have a wider experience, of both experiencing sexual attraction and not experiencing sexual attraction. Asexuals have only not experienced sexual attraction. 

You know I agree with you, and as someone who spent the vast majority of my adult years so far with a total lack of desire for sexual intimacy with others I feel I know better than most what it feels like to be on both sides of the fence - However, I was just trying to be diplomatic 😛 And regardless of who can define asexuality better, sexuals will still always be able to explain what it feels like to be sexual better than any ace can. Someday, aces may even start listening to us and some of the misconceptions about sexuals in the ace community can begin to be cleared up!

[Telecaster68]

Yep, I was just developing the argument. 

 

An analogy: sex and walking on the moon.

 

I'm guessing nobody on AVEN has walked on the moon. We've seen footage, seen films, read about it, maybe imagined it, understood the physics of almost no gravity. But Neil Armstrong is always going to know better what it's like because he's done it. It would be ludicrous for any of us to contradict him about the experience of walking on the moon on the basis of us having watched it, read about it, imagined it, understood the maths. We just know about walking on earth; and Armstrong knows about that too. He's in a better position to understand the effect of walking in no gravity and no atmosphere than we can possibly be, because he's walked around in earth gravity and atmosphere, and in almost no gravity and no atmosphere. The only bit we know better about it what it's like to have never walked on the moon (and even then, he can remember what it was like before he walked on the moon, so he's got some insight there too). 

 

Just to be clear (since analogies have a tendency to be epically misconstrued on AVEN) - in this analogy, asexuals are all the people who've never walked on the moon. Asexuals know better than sexuals what it's like to never want to have sex with anyone else; but sexuals can figure out some of what that's like from all the times they haven't wanted to have sex with someone else. Sexuals know what it's like to want to have sex with someone, and what it's like to not want to have sex with someone, so we do have more knowledge over all. The only bit we're missing is what it's like to never want partnered sex.

 

So asexuals explaining sexual attraction (especially to sexuals) is like most of us trying to explain to Neil Armstrong how he's wrong about what it's like to walk on the moon. We don't know. He does.

 

 

[Éadweard]

Asexuals (especially on this site) are more interested in words and definitions (or complaining about them) than anything else. 

[binary suns]

23 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

You must have missed the meaning behind my initial comment here. I was saying it's a normal everyday thing and it's not asexuality, the way it was being defined by some people here. Nothing more and nothing less. You seem to be trying to argue with me without actually disagreeing with what I'm saying so I'm not sure what your intent is here. Maybe drop it if you're just going to keep repeating what I've said back to me as a question?

I'm saying that you're being redundant. If your only point to make as many long posts as you've made, here, is, "demisexuality isn't asexuality", everyone already knows that.

 

Maybe you want your message to be, "there are a lot of demisexuals in the world, to the point where many of them feel like they lead normal lives, so maybe any demisexuals in this thread can have hope",

 

but then you would not be arguing with everyone like you are. So no, we aren't in agreement, you're missing the point of demisexuality, which is to say, "in some ways we lack sexual attraction, but we are still capable of sexual attraction. This makes us unlike aces, but also unlike the normal sexual experience"

 

 

 

[binary suns]

On 7/19/2018 at 12:21 AM, FictoVore. said:

Every sexual person alive only experiences sexual attraction under certain, specific circumstances.

Um, no, lots of sexual people feel sexual attraction pretty readily, to many people, often in varying amounts and with varying flavors of attraction. I'm attracted to my boss, she's a boss, and is hot. But, the way I'm attracted to her is not strong, because well, she's my boss, and a wife and mother, so like, I just appreciate her attractiveness as if it's a trait of hers, and that feels different from my crush on this one new friend of mine, which is arousing and cute and infatuated and idk how to explain it.

 

But the point is, I feel sexual attraction very readily, and so do most sexual folks. I personally would not say what you've said there. I do not only feel sexual attraction under certain, specific circumstances - I feel it freely, unconditionally - I feel it for people who are attractive to me, and well that's a self-cyclic statement, so it's nothing. It isn't a condition, it's a=b. A condition is C leads to D, I have nothing that is a condition, when it comes to sexual attraction.

 

But for demis, there is - "a close connection, or other unusual conditions, leads to the capability (but not guarantee) of sexual attraction to that specific person"

[binary suns]

On 7/19/2018 at 5:45 AM, FictoVore. said:

 

 

I know how hard it is for some asexuals when they are faced with the idea that their assumptions about how regular sexual people function are completely and utterly incorrect,

 

The sexual people who are here are either here because they have asexual partners, or because they have enough in common with asexuals

 

 

YOU only want to believe the things you want to believe Pramana, 

 

 

And you! 

 

Please don't get trapped into thinking you have all the answers. I've been there, I don't like making this post but I also like helping people see themselves better y'know? I think that you have a lot of things worth sharing, and you seem dedicated to that. But you're treating it like it's a crusade, and it's not. Share your experience, but realize that other people's experiences aren't like yours in a lot of ways, just as they also have experience like yours in a lot of ways. We all differ, but we also have a lot in common, and trying to be the bigger person only ever makes us look like the smaller person who can't accept others. Like I said it bothers me to quote you so much. But as a former demiromantic, I want to defend my community, and you're attacking it pretty agressively in this thread, so match fire with fire amirite?  I like you. But please step back a hair! 

[binary suns]

19 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

 

 

So asexuals explaining sexual attraction (especially to sexuals) is like most of us trying to explain to Neil Armstrong how he's wrong about what it's like to walk on the moon. We don't know. He does.

 

 

I don't know about that. If Neil Armstrong said something clearly incorrect about how it works, he's talking about what it is like, and yet every scientest will correct him, because he's no expert.  He has anecdotal experience, like pranama points out. He might know what it was like for him to walk on the moon, but while we can assume it's probably similar for most other people, he has no clue what it would be like for a blind person, or a kangaroo, or someone with substantial synesthesia, or for a robot with advanced tech. Lots of people and other entities could benefit from some forwarning about what it's like to be on the moon, but as much experience as Armstrong has, he is not a certified all-knowing master at it. He only has his experience. 

 

Where, all the scientists and engineers who worked on the moon but never went? They have the ability to think critically, and the knowledge needed to understand what happens when Armstrong walked on the moon. . Aces could imagine about sexual attraction from many different stand points and still get it right.

 

 

I think it is true to say that usually, an ace is better at knowing a lack of sexual attraction, and sexuals would be better at explaining sexual attraction, but that's not definitions. 

 

I think it's actually reverse - sexuals are better at defining what isn't sexual atraction, and asexuals are better at defining what isn't asexuality. 

 

But, the problem is deeper than that - it isn't on that level of what's happening. The issue appears to me, to be that just anyone is treated as an expert, and all the peanut gallery comments confuses the standards around. When a million monkeys randomly type on a type writer, they just will create so much garbage that you'll miss the random actual good quality words. 

 

Not to imply anyone is garbage of course!

 

[Telecaster68]

I think you need to read my post again. I was specifically not talking about definitions or theories. I was talking about the lived experience.

[MsKittenFluff]

On 7/20/2018 at 5:26 PM, Tarfeather said:

I don't see how it is, frankly. Not in the way that asexuality is different from "allosexuality" (I don't like that word). My partner is asexual. That means that there will never be anyone under any circumstance she'll be sexually attracted to or desire sex with. If she were demisexual, there might be someone at some point. Even if it's only one person, or the chance of one person but actually it never happens, that's vastly different from it being in your nature that this thing just fundamentally can't happen.

 

To be honest, what I'm hearing from you is that you're considering yourself to be so completely special and unique compared to "normal allosexuals" that you belong in a different category. And I kind of have to agree with Ficto in that in my opinion, every single allosexual is special and unique and incomparable to the baseline, because we're all individuals and sexuality is such a complex matter and so deeply interconnected with our personality.

 

For instance, maybe only meeting one or two people over the course of your whole life you're attracted to is unusual compared to the experiences of most people. On the other hand, going for decades being attracted to a lot of people, and then meeting that one person who literally redefines your world and you can only find yourself attracted to that one person from that point on would also be unusual. Yet, both experiences are perfectly normal and human ways of being a sexual person.

 

In conclusion, I consider demisexuals as a subcategory of sexuals, and not even as an unusual one as that. It just seems unusual because of cultural and social norms and expectations, but in terms of just looking at someone as a human, it's just a normal way of being sexual.

"If she were demisexual, there might be someone at some point. Even if it's only one person, or the chance of one person but actually it never happens" -- are you saying a demisexual is only hypothetical as in "it never actually happens". Most demisexuals identify as asexual until it happens, that's when it becomes an identifying as demisexual, not before. Until then, they're asexual. Once it does happen, however, it doesn't become a regular sexual attraction nor does that experience of sexual attraction begin to make sense to the individual.

"every single allosexual is special and unique and incomparable to the baseline, because we're all individuals and sexuality is such a complex matter and so deeply interconnected with our personality." I don't know what you're arguing here. Obviously everyone experiences their lives and attractions and the lack of them uniquely. Except for what you say at the end of this, sexuality is complex and interconnected with personality. Yeah. I've grown so disgusted of sex I'm surprised it ever happened with anyone.

 

I don't really care too much how your mind comprehends demisexuality, to me in return it's obvious by reading what you're saying, that you fundamentally don't comprehend what the experience is, all you see is "you came to 'enjoy' it at some point therefore sexual". What's generally accepted as "normal sexual behaviour" is when you get up and close with someone you feel things happening in your body and your mind goes with it, so does your sexual attraction to the person whether you have special feelings for this particular person or not, and in general you agree with everything that is happening and what you're doing and what you're physically feeling and you feel a desire for that particular person and it only grows from there or it shrivels out as you lose your interest in them. You have an interest in a person that has an interest in you. For some they need to feel a deeper interest, for some they need to wait til it's fairly mutual, for some they need to wait til marriage, some don't need to know the person at all. Etc etc etc etc. Some of them are demi, some of them ace, some gray and some are simply sexual with all their personal unique preferences. Yeah, no. I could have sex with people, very little, or a lot, very quick or for hours. I could even have fun and enjoy it since it's mutual, it's someone I was generally into and even loved and they obviously got their kicks from sex and most of them I knew for a long time, but I didn't feel sexually attracted to any of them nor did I get turned on or get any kicks out of anything neither did I sexually desire them nor did I find them physically attractive. If that's normal, not so uncommon sexuality to you and doesn't have anything to do with asexuality or any of its subcategories, by all means, keep thinking that, it has nothing to do with me. This whole topic is disgusting me so I'm out.

[bare_trees]

On 7/22/2018 at 1:51 AM, FictoVore. said:

Mutual masturbation is still partnered sexual activity. Vaginal penetration is no more or less valid than other kinds of sex, or else gay men in a sexual relationship would not actually be sexually active 😛

But from what I understand, sex between men involves penetration.  I'm talking about no penetration at all.  I've had two different medical professsionals tell me I don't qualify as "sexually active," and was under the mistaken impression that I was.

[Alejandrogynous]

1 minute ago, bare_trees said:

But from what I understand, sex between men involves penetration.  I'm talking about no penetration at all.  I've had two different medical professsionals tell me I don't qualify as "sexually active," and was under the mistaken impression that I was.

When medical professions ask about being "sexually active", all they're really looking for is the potential for pregnancy and STDs/infections. If fluids don't swap, they're not likely to count it in the medical sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're not having sexual encounters. 

[Telecaster68]

1 hour ago, bare_trees said:

But from what I understand, sex between men involves penetration.  I'm talking about no penetration at all.  I've had two different medical professsionals tell me I don't qualify as "sexually active," and was under the mistaken impression that I was.

If that were true, no lesbians would ever be sexually active. 

[bare_trees]

4 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

If that were true, no lesbians would ever be sexually active. 

I'm not trying to say I believe you're completely wrong, but I've dated mostly women in my life, and all of them wanted to have sex that involved penetration.  And we didn't last very long once they realized I didn't want to do that, or it was going to take me dating them for at least a year or so before I would even think about it.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, bare_trees said:

But from what I understand, sex between men involves penetration.  I'm talking about no penetration at all.  I've had two different medical professsionals tell me I don't qualify as "sexually active," and was under the mistaken impression that I was.

As pointed out above, medical professionals are looking for activity that will lead to pregnancy or STI. However if you were having sex daily with a woman without penetration being involved (masturbating together while you watch each other or whatever) you're both still having partnered sexual activity, it's just a kind not as favoured by many couples. It's called 'non-penetrative sex' and there are people who have a preference for it, it's just not as common for men to prefer that (for example, there are many women who don't feel a lot from having their vagina penetrated but do love to receive oral. There are less men in that boat for obvious reasons but I've still met men who have a preference for say, masturbating onto a girls boobs than they have for penetrating her, that's just quite rare!). Desiring a less preferred type of sex though doesn't stop one from being sexual or having sexual desires, it just means that person has less chance of finding compatible partners due to having a rarer sexual preference. (I'm not saying how you can and can't identify though, I'm talking about the activities themselves. How you choose to identify is up to you of course).

 

If you met a woman (using a woman as a random example  but could be anyone of course) who you connected with emotionally/romantically, who was smart and funny and beautiful (in your opinion anyway) and who only desired mutual masturbation but had no interest in other kinds of sex, do you think you could have a happy and sexually fulfilling relationship with her?

 

There are other comments here I'm meaning to respond to but right now I don't feel like engaging with some of the epic and clearly intentional twisting of words and concepts that some people commenting here are guilty of. Not you Trees, but some of the commenters here seem to be hell bent on refusing to understand some of the concepts being discussed for whatever reason. Eventually I'll get around to responding to them if I can gather the energy though.  

[bare_trees]

7 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Quote

As pointed out above, medical professionals are looking for activity that will lead to pregnancy or STI. However if you were having sex daily with a woman without penetration being involved (masturbating together while you watch each other or whatever) you're both still having partnered sexual activity, it's just a kind not as favoured by many couples. It's called 'non-penetrative sex' and there are people who have a preference for it, it's just not as common for men to prefer that (for example, there are many women who don't feel a lot from having their vagina penetrated but do love to receive oral. There are less men in that boat for obvious reasons but I've still met men who have a preference for say, masturbating onto a girls boobs than they have for penetrating her, that's just quite rare!). Desiring a less preferred type of sex though doesn't stop one from being sexual or having sexual desires, it just means that person has less chance of finding compatible partners due to having a rarer sexual preference. (I'm not saying how you can and can't identify though, I'm talking about the activities themselves. How you choose to identify is up to you of course).

I wish those doctors had explained that--that the medical definition is different from the colloquial one.  I wouldn't do anything like that daily--probably once every two or three months, but I do desire that kind of contact once I've known/been dating someone for many months.  

 

Quote

If you met a woman (using a woman as a random example  but could be anyone of course) who you connected with emotionally/romantically, who was smart and funny and beautiful (in your opinion anyway) and who only desired mutual masturbation but had no interest in other kinds of sex, do you think you could have a happy and sexually fulfilling relationship with her?

Yes, that's all I would want.  I'm willing to try other things but I have an aversion to being penetrated.

Ok, I messed up the formatting of the post there.  But anyhow, thanks for your reply.

 

[EmbrAce It]

Okay, so I read all that, and now I'm confused by both sides because...what are you arguing about?

I'm demisexual and demiromantic, have been identifying that way for a long while now, and nothing has changed my mind. I've only had two crushes, both of which lasted an insanely long time but also took an "insanely long time" to develop (though for me it's normal, which is why I had trouble identifying as such) and I've only experienced sexual attraction once (which took over a year after romantic attraction to develop). 

While there are many demisexual/demiromantic people who have more in common with a sexual/romantic person, there are many that identify more with an asexual/aromantic person. To me the definition of demisexual or demiromantic should not only include how "long" it takes us to develop our attractions, but include that there is an actual lack of attraction beforehand, include that we aren't being "picky". It is often conceived that demisexual or demiromantic people are normal and we're just zedsexuals trying to make ourselves special, however our attraction vastly differs from both those of a sexual person and those of an asexual person. 

So while you could argue that demisexuals are a subset of sexuals "and not even an unusual one"...there are many of us who would be a subset of asexual. 

I think you're confusing the experiences of demisexuals with those of a sexual person who actually "can't find the right person", or who actually focuses on their life before finding a romantic/sexual partner. What you described, to me, is some variant of amatonormativity - the assumption that a lot of human beings feel attraction the same way and that there is a "normal" standard of being sexual...

And that standard is not what demisexuals "meet", so to speak...while it doesn't mean they have to relate more to asexuality, it doesn't mean that they won't. All demisexuals are different. 

[Guest]

@bare_trees - You sound a bit like me. I dont like penetrative stuff (oral, anal, PiV) so by medical im not sexually active - I cant get pregnant this way and STD risk is low. But, I do enjoy some sexual activities. One doesnt have to be doing traditional sex to have a sex life or be sexual as a person.  So up to you how you want to go with it.

[Telecaster68]

17 hours ago, bare_trees said:

I'm not trying to say I believe you're completely wrong, but I've dated mostly women in my life, and all of them wanted to have sex that involved penetration.  And we didn't last very long once they realized I didn't want to do that, or it was going to take me dating them for at least a year or so before I would even think about it.

Having dated entirely women all my life, I know what you mean. None of them would have been happy if PIV wasn't going to happen (except my wife, maybe, in retrospect). But if two women were aroused, and getting each other off, it makes no sense to me to say they hadn't had sex. Similarly, with men and hand jobs (or whatever other nonpenetrative activities). 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, EmbrAce It said:

but include that there is an actual lack of attraction beforehand,

But everybody has a lack of sexual attraction before they develop it, that's one of the main things that's so baffling about this convo to me.

 

I personally sometimes go for years without feeling it until I meet someone and develop the right kind of bond that sparks that feeling (though for me the bond itself doesn't take a long time to develop, it's just I can only experience 'attraction' once I've developed that bond, it can be very rare for it to happen, and without it I don't have attraction). Most people don't walk around with this perpetual, eternal state of attraction happening inside them though, they need to meet someone specific to be able to feel it - that person sparks it for some reason. For some sexuals, that requires an emotional bond and if they only develop that bond randomly, or rarely, well they have a lack of attraction a lot of the time. All sorts of different things spark that feeling for many people, and for some, it's a lot rarer than for others. But everyone has a lack of attraction at least sometimes, and others (like myself) may go for years without it. Some even think they're ace and end up on AVEN before discovering we can actually experience it!

 

So I'm just not getting this 'lack of attraction' thing that keeps being reiterated. Everyone lacks attraction sometimes, and some people can lack it for a long time before they find someone they can connect with in a way that makes them able to feel it. They're not picky, it's just that attraction can't be turned on and off like a tap. It only happens with the right person and the right set of circumstances and for some people that's a lot rarer than for others. That doesn't make them ace though. (I'm not saying they can't call themselves demi if they want.. but just because someone has some things in common with asexuals doesn't actually make them ace. I've fucked girls in the past so I have some things in common with lesbians but I'd be slightly deluded if I believed I was a lesbian just because I have some experiences in common with them).

[EmbrAce It]

42 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

But everybody has a lack of sexual attraction before they develop it, that's one of the main things that's so baffling about this convo to me.

While I'm so glad to know that demisexuals identifying under the ace spectrum/gray-ace umbrella is deluded...

In the end it's up to the person identifying as demisexual themselves: "Do I lean more towards sexual or asexual identities?"

While everyone experiences a "lack" of consistent sexual attraction, some people are turned on by the aesthetic appearances of random strangers and some people are open to going out with someone they met half an hour ago. Whether or not this is you...it's up to the person who chooses to identify as demisexual...

Some sexual or romantic people may lack the desire to actually act on certain attractions, but for demisexual or demiromantic people it's not actually there (until quite a while), and there is nothing to pursue. If you feel no need for labels or for identifying under the ace umbrella because you experience attraction every few years, that's fine, but for the people who do identify as demi-, it's important to us, so..

Each to their own, really. Personally, I feel I have more "in common", so to speak, with the ace/aro community than the sexual/romantic community.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, EmbrAce It said:

some people are turned on by the aesthetic appearances of random strangers and some people are open to going out with someone they met half an hour ago.

Some sexual people with a certain personality type are turned on by the aesthetic appearance of strangers and/or want to 'go out' with someone they only met half an hour ago. That's not what defines someone as sexual though. Those are only personality traits that some sexual people have and many do not.

 

5 hours ago, EmbrAce It said:

but for the people who do identify as demi-, it's important to us, so..

*sigh*. People are constantly making this about how they personally identify, while others (ie myself) keep saying ''you can identify however the heck you like''. The issue is that some people are claiming that to be 'sexual' (as in, not asexual) you have to exhibit a certain kind of behavior. Yet that behavior they are describing certainly does not apply to all sexual people, like your above example. We are trying to clarify that no, not all sexual people are like that and actually, you're completely wrong in how you're trying to define them. That's the issue. That's important to us, so...

 

5 hours ago, EmbrAce It said:

Personally, I feel I have more "in common", so to speak, with the ace/aro community than the sexual/romantic community.

As do I. But that doesn't mean I'm going to claim I'm ace now that I know I'm not (given that I've actually wanted sexual intimacy physically with/felt 'sexual attraction' for one person in my life so far, even though I never actually got to have that sex physically with him). Sure I have a lot in common with aces and even aros a lot of the time, but I've also got plenty in common with lesbians: That doesn't make me one. This isn't about how people are personally identifying though. It's about sexual people trying to explain that the boxes certain people are trying to squeeze us into just don't fit at best, and are wildly inaccurate and offensive at worst.

 

Sexuals here aren't even trying to define demisexuality for you. We are saying that the way certain people are defining it depicts perfectly normal sexual behavior. So suddenly either a great deal of the population is asexual, or the way it's being defined by certain people doesn't have anything to do with asexuality. You guys can't even agree on the definition of demisexuality (well at least, you're all defining it differently then kind of agreeing with each other even though your definitions are quite vastly different from person to person), yet you then try to argue every time someone says ''well that specific definition just describes a normal sexual person''.. Seriously, it's baffling.

[EmbrAce It]

Again, as I said, it's up to you, or me, or anyone who's questioning or not questioning, whether or not they identify as part of the ace umbrella...

If my own definition of my sexuality, specifically, is wrong...well, I don't personally think you or any ace/sexual person can decide that for me. While you may consider my identity (and evidently the individually unique identities of everyone who identifies as demisexual) to be more of a sexual subset, and basically how "normal", sexual people act, then sure. Whatever. I just don't see why I can't identify under the ace umbrella for my own reasons.

I don't become sexual every time I experience sexual attraction (which has, to this point, only been once) and I don't become asexual every time I'm not currently experiencing it. Asexuals are better at defining what isn't asexuality, as sexuals are better at defining what isn't sexual attraction.

You may not need the label, but I quite like it. I'm not saying that everything that isn't asexual is automatically sexual, or vice versa. There are an infinite number of other explanations and scenarios with which to describe a sexual person's experience, but I happen to use just one, because I don't want to keep typing for a couple hours giving fifty different examples of aces, graces, and sexuals.

[bare_trees]

10 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

 

 

Sexuals here aren't even trying to define demisexuality for you. We are saying that the way certain people are defining it depicts perfectly normal sexual behavior. So suddenly either a great deal of the population is asexual, or the way it's being defined by certain people doesn't have anything to do with asexuality. You guys can't even agree on the definition of demisexuality (well at least, you're all defining it differently then kind of agreeing with each other even though your definitions are quite vastly different from person to person), yet you then try to argue every time someone says ''well that specific definition just describes a normal sexual person''.. Seriously, it's baffling.

I think we do agree that not experiencing sexual attraction/desire before forming a close bond over time is the basic definition, right?  So we have that much?  It seems to be the finer points that we're unclear about.  All I can say is that my feelings and experiences have differed greatly from the vast majority of people I've come across--people who are definitely sexual.  It has caused confusion in my life and ended all of my relationships but the one I'm currently in.  Of course I can only speak for myself.

[Sophi]

On 7/3/2018 at 5:30 AM, Maristine said:

When you say that demisexuals are only sexually attracted to people you have an emotional connection with, it sounds like, to most people, you’re saying that demisexuals just prefer not to have sex with strangers, which is a totally normal thing among sexual people.

T H I S

 

Omg. The other day I was browsing an LGBT+ page on Instagram. On their stories, they had a poll, that asked "Is demisexuality a sexuality or a preference?" I, a little shocked, voted on sexuality, obviously. Turns out that 88% of the voters didn't agree with me. I felt enraged and affected. Really?! No, hear me out, putting pickles on my burger or choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate it's a preference. Being Demisexual it's not.

 

Thank you for writing this post. You really made me think of something that's so true and important.

[DebtheDemi]

On 7/2/2018 at 11:30 PM, Maristine said:

Usually people say that demisexuals don’t experience sexual attraction until they form a strong emotional connection with a person. While it is correct, I feel like it doesn’t really convey what demisexuality actually is. Like asexuality, demisexuality is a lack of sexual attraction, except under certain circumstances. When you say that demisexuals are only sexually attracted to people you have an emotional connection with, it sounds like, to most people, you’re saying that demisexuals just prefer not to have sex with strangers, which is a totally normal thing among sexual people.

 

That’s why, if someone asks what that means, I say that I’m asexual except for two people throughout my whole life. I’ve only felt sexual attraction to two people out of the thousands and thousands of people I’ve ever seen. Demisexuality is when you lack primary sexual attraction (when you see a stranger and think they’re attractive), but still have secondary sexual attraction (when you get to know them and then developed feelings for them). The thing is though, that most sexual attraction is or at least starts off as primary attraction. Secondary attraction without primary attraction (at least as far as the allos have told me) is pretty rare for people in general, which is why demisexuals relate more to asexuality than allosexuality.

 

Just my little rant. Other demis let me know if you agree or disagree! Maybe I’m just overreacting and nobody else cares about this.

Sheesh, I shouldn't have gone through the other pages. Kudos to you guys for dealing with that toxicity. Ugh.

 

The definition for demisexuality that they've settled on is part of the reason people say that's what everyone experiences. I'm around allosexuals all day. There is a huge difference in more than just how we experience sexual attraction. It's our level of interest in sex, our level of desire for sex, how often and long we enjoy discussing sex, how we imagine intimacy. I wish they could rework the definition to include the nuances so we don't get this weak interpretation that constantly gets misinterpreted.