"Demisexuality" and Misunderstanding Sexual Attraction

[Telecaster68]

*fights with asshole's father in the Definition Wars*

[mausgrau]

So, seems to me the problem might not be so much asexual people misunderstanding/misrepresenting sexual attraction, but rather sexual people doing just that? Arguably mistakingly identifying as demi or somewhere on the asexual spectrum?

[Telecaster68]

9 minutes ago, Whatsis said:

So, seems to me the problem might not be so much asexual people misunderstanding/misrepresenting sexual attraction, but rather sexual people doing just that? Arguably mistakingly identifying as demi or somewhere on the asexual spectrum?

I blame the asexual 16 year olds. They need to do a better job of explaining it to us.

[mausgrau]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I blame the asexual 16 year olds. They need to do a better job of explaining it to us.

😂

[Grumpy Alien]

The only people who think sexual attraction only occurring after a strong bond between the two people is outside of societal norms are asexual youths. It is widely considered normal to anyone older than 30 and anyone who identifies as some flavor of sexual. If you describe it to most people on the street and ask them if that’s weird, they’re gonna say no and might even tell you that’s how they feel.

 

There seems to be a very strong misconception on AVEN and tumblr that at the very least a strong majority of sexuals feel sexual attraction to strangers all the time. That’s a myth. Some do, certainly... but that is a bit outside of societal norms. Hookup culture isn't about some fiery emotionless passion between strangers. It’s honestly mostly selfish. It’s feeding a desire that isn’t related to a specific person. They might not be in it just for the orgasm - they might be struggling with stress or negative emotions about relationships or self image. It’s usually also young adults who do this and grow out of it. It’s very frowned upon outside of those who participate in hookups. Sexual people don’t find everyone sexy, they won’t hump anything with a pulse, and they don’t want sex with every person they think is attractive. If that were understood, I don’t think the label of demisexual would exist.

[Ceebs]

Not gonna lie, AVEN bullshit has messed with my perception of what it means to be sexual. Since when is desiring sex only after an emotional connection partly asexual? It's like people here have such a negative impression of sex and sexuality that if they find themselves having actual sexual feelings, they need to find a way to still be asexual somehow because ewwww sex is for dumb gross people. It's fucked with my idea of what I means to want sex even with someone you love. Intellectually I know it's completely stupid to worry about that, but I do. I have strong feelings of love and respect and affection and care for the person I'm involved with, and I have strong sexual feelings too... because that's just who I am, when I feel something it's very intense to me... and I've needed reassurance multiple times that it's not shallow and stupid, that I don't need to justify the sexual stuff somehow. Objectively, I know it's not stupid, I know it doesn't make me shallow, I know it doesn't need justification. Honestly it feels like one of the absolute least shallow things I've experienced in my entire life. I get that asexuals won't understand that. But this place worms its way into your consciousness such that you start feeling gross and creepy for being normal. Like how fucked up is it that I love someone deeply and feel that desire for them and still occasionally wonder if there's something wrong with me for that and think that I should tone down the sexual portion of my feelings because there's something bad about wanting someone (who isn't asexual either) in that way and expressing that to them? Isn't that hella backwards? Obviously my own psychology is my own issue to deal with, but hanging around AVEN does not help. There are some really funny ideas floating around here that you don't encounter elsewhere, and I don't know that I'd question what's normal within myself so much if it weren't for those ideas.

 

What's wrong with sex, guys? Why are so many of you so hellbent on making sure that asexuality includes anything that isn't nymphomania level interest in fucking? (Or, relatedly, conveying the message that having strong sexual feelings is bad.)

[Guest]

3 hours ago, luna07 said:

: It's called "Demisexual" and not "sexual" because it is a pattern of human behavior, relating to love and attraction, that doesn't fit societal norms. The norm of sexuality, that is most common, is that someone can feel sexual attraction when they meet someone and it doesn't have to take them a long time, like it does for Demisexuals.

 That's a misconception perpetuated in the ace community (usually by young people). I say again, the term 'sexual' is not synonymous with being attracted to strangers. Many sexuals take time to form that sexual attraction and many require an emotional bond to be able to feel it. That's literally just normal sexual behaviour. It's only one type of sexual person who is fully sexually attracted to strangers or people they hardly know, many are not.

 

3 hours ago, luna07 said:

Can you please stop shitting around the forum devalidating other orientations, please?

Explaining how normal sexual people feel in their day-to-day experience is not 'devalidating' other orientations. We're trying to explain (for the benefit of those who are actually shitting on normal sexual experience by misrepresenting it so extremely) what it feels like to be sexual.

 

4 hours ago, FlyingFree said:

And I'll repeat that your text color is painful and difficult for me to read. If you could change it at least on this thread, I'd be able to read and respond easier.

You could highlight it by selecting it before you read it, which will make it black on blue? I type like this because I have an eye condition that means I have a lot of trouble with black text on whiteish colours (I have to highlight every comment I read!). I've never been able to read newspapers or magazines properly, and mostly listen to audiobooks a opposed to reading books where I can help it. Writing like this means my eyes can much better see what I'm doing while I'm typing, which makes editing a lot faster especially when I'm on my phone like I am now. I used to use pale green text and that was even better for me, but this orange was kind of a compromise for those who couldn't see the pale green 😛 lol. I often use purple too which might be better for you, but I'm on my phone right now (I use copy/paste from my other comments to get this text) so we're stuck with this format until I can get on my comp and change it sorry :c 

 

 

[mausgrau]

"AVEN bullshit" is one hell of a thing for sure! But sex and shame are so deeply interwoven, it's basically a cultural heritage. And the majority who participate in all of that obviously are not asexual. That's some "sexual bullshit" going on right there.

[Ceebs]

Just now, Whatsis said:

"AVEN bullshit" is one hell of a thing for sure! But sex and shame are so deeply interwoven, it's basically a cultural heritage. And the majority who participate in all of that obviously are not asexual. That's some "sexual bullshit" going on right there.

All very true, yep. Our culture is pretty screwed up. It messes with perceptions of normal, healthy sexuality for sexuals and asexuals alike.

[Ceebs]

Also, I might add...

 

48 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

That's a misconception perpetuated in the ace community (usually by young people). I say again, the term 'sexual' is not synonymous with being attracted to strangers. Many sexuals take time to form that sexual attraction and many require an emotional bond to be able to feel it. That's literally just normal sexual behaviour. It's only one type of sexual person who is attracted to strangers or people they hardly know, many are not.

Feeling some sort of attraction to a stranger can happen and technically be a manifestation of one's sexual orientation, but still be experienced in a way that isn't overtly sexual and doesn't include thoughts of "fuck me now, gorgeous stranger". Last summer I was in a store at the mall and the girl working at the till was crazy pretty and she was friendly and had recommended a couple things to me and seemed like someone with a lot of character and an intriguing personality. I asked her a few questions and honestly my brain was just so, like... derp derp derp there's a pretty girl talking to me... that I've no idea what her answers were. I was with someone else in the store and we both burst out laughing when we left because of my behaviour. But I wasn't thinking about sex. I certainly wasn't aroused. If she showed up on my doorstep and suggested we have sex, I'd be weirded out and say no. I told the person I actually love and have feelings for that way about the incident, and she laughed. There's no threat to the real connection I have just because I got tongue-tied over a pretty girl I don't know. This whole "attraction to strangers" thing doesn't necessarily manifest in overtly sexual ways. Truthfully it never does for me personally, my brain just doesn't jump to sex. But for sure it's still a part of my sexuality.

[Skycaptain]

OK, can we all please take a deep breath. 

Debating is fine, but can we keep it to a debate

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, asshole said:

Feeling some sort of attraction to a stranger can happen and technically be a manifestation of one's sexual orientation, but still be experienced in a way that isn't overtly sexual and doesn't include thoughts of "fuck me now, gorgeous stranger"

Yes exactly. Even many asexuals experience that whole 'oh wow she's so pretty I'd like to get to know her better' thing, or getting a bit giggly and flustered because someone they deem aesthetically very attractive spoke to them. It isn't a requirement of being sexual that one also wants to bang that person just because they find them attractive!!

 

I'd say the majority of the sexual people I have met socially (on or offline) need to have at least some kind of emotional connection to a person before they can actively want to have sex with them. Sure some sexual people absolutely can bang strangers (I worked in a brothel for two years, I should know lol), but that doesn't somehow discredit the existence of those many, many people who need an emotional connection before they can even begin to have those sexual desires for someone else.

 

Though this is a topic that I've been trying to explain for 4 years now on AVEN. It's a flaw in the education the asexual community provides its young ace members that this massive misconception about 'normal' sexual behaviour is still perpetuated here, to this day. *sigh* As I've said hundreds of times now, AVEN urgently needs to provide more accurate info about 'normal sexuality' to its members which will help everyone to better understand both sexuality and asexuality.

[Telecaster68]

45 minutes ago, asshole said:

Also, I might add...

 

Feeling some sort of attraction to a stranger can happen and technically be a manifestation of one's sexual orientation, but still be experienced in a way that isn't overtly sexual and doesn't include thoughts of "fuck me now, gorgeous stranger". Last summer I was in a store at the mall and the girl working at the till was crazy pretty and she was friendly and had recommended a couple things to me and seemed like someone with a lot of character and an intriguing personality. I asked her a few questions and honestly my brain was just so, like... derp derp derp there's a pretty girl talking to me... that I've no idea what her answers were. I was with someone else in the store and we both burst out laughing when we left because of my behaviour. But I wasn't thinking about sex. I certainly wasn't aroused. If she showed up on my doorstep and suggested we have sex, I'd be weirded out and say no. I told the person I actually love and have feelings for that way about the incident, and she laughed. There's no threat to the real connection I have just because I got tongue-tied over a pretty girl I don't know. This whole "attraction to strangers" thing doesn't necessarily manifest in overtly sexual ways. Truthfully it never does for me personally, my brain just doesn't jump to sex. But for sure it's still a part of my sexuality.

It's almost like humans are complicated beings with minds of their own. 

[Ceebs]

6 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's almost like humans are complicated beings with minds of their own. 

A shocking revelation to some, no doubt.  

[Telecaster68]

Possibly an inconvenient truth.

[ryn2]

Also, at least where I live, “hookup culture” is nothing new. When I was a teen and young adult it was normal to expect and deliver sex on a first or second date and to abandon relationships (“relationships”?) where that didn’t happen as having no potential.

 

The main changes I’ve seen over time are that 1) it’s much more widely accepted (around here) that women may also want to seek hookups, and 2) because people are marrying later there is less pressure to hide FWB and other “not leading anywhere” sex arrangements.  Both of those things have been true for a couple of decades.

 

The only really newish thing is the proliferation of related apps smartphones have brought on.

[Snao Cone]

On the other side of the coin, I've seen some people who could very well be asexual identify as demisexual (or grey) because they aren't comfortable unequivocally saying "I'm never going to have sex no matter how much I love someone!" Who knows why that might be -- it could be from not wanting to be misunderstood as void of desire for intimacy, or it could be from not wanting to be seen as being anti-sex in general. This happens more with younger people too. It's a confusing topic, but we should at least all admit that it takes life experience to learn these sorts of things.

 

This is sort of like identifying as bisexual despite almost all evidence pointing to being attracted to one sex/gender, just because you never really know where life is taking you. Even if you feel like you're being true to yourself by using these labels, there's a point at which it's impractical to see yourself that way and identify that way to others. If you want to be understood you have to communicate properly. Making extremely specific labels to focus on assumed/perceived differences won't do this. That's not good communication.

[Sally]

10 hours ago, luna07 said:

asshole: It's called "Demisexual" and not "sexual" because it is a pattern of human behavior, relating to love and attraction, that doesn't fit societal norms.

You know what?   NOTHING fits societal norms.  Because there is no "society"; everyone is their own norm.  Perhaps you have not bothered to read what others have posted here, indicating  that commenters are their own norms.   You should do so.  

[Kayze]

 

17 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

And as I explained quite clearly, there are many sexual people who literally just don't develop that desire until they've developed an emotional bond. That doesn't have to mean they're demisexual or somewhere on the ace spectrum though, they're just a variation of sexual person. I should know, being one of these people myself.

 

I'm not talking about abstinence, I mean literally having no desire for intimate sexual acts with a person unless and until an emotional bond has formed. No, obviously not all sexual people experience this, but enough do experience it that it's not something that is its own unique orientation.

 

Being sexual isn't synonymous with desiring indescriminate sex with attractive strangers. We're not all secretly gagging for it but holding off until we know we can trust the person or whatever. Some of us just legitimately can't even begin to desire that interaction until a specific kind of emotional bond has formed with another person. That doesn't mean we need to adopt a unique label or anything though.

And as I've explained, most people experience sexual attraction before an emotional bond because sexual attraction isn't about the act. And yet here you go again saying "Being sexual isn't synonymous with desiring [indiscriminate] sex with attractive strangers" . You can experience sexual attraction and not act on it. I experience attraction to chocolate but don't act on it for various reasons; Maybe it's combined with something I dislike, was found on the ground, or I'm on a diet but that doesn't change that I'm still somewhat attracted to it.

 

An demisexual, by its definition, is essentially an asexual except for some whom they've developed a deep emotional bond, while a sexual person experiences sexual attraction regularly but may or may not act on it for whatever reason (like said above). The label strictly refers to being halfway on the sexual-asexual spectrum. Sexual attraction is a feeling, not a decision nor a trust thing.

 

17 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

Women don't naturally have bald armpits either, nor do they wake up with their makeup on. But that's what sells so it's what you'll most often see in the media (even in movies set in medieval times which is just frikken annoying). The types of advertisements and media etc that you're talking about cater to a specific type of audience. But believe me, there are plenty of sexuals who hate the way sex is portrayed in the media because they know it doesn't represent them or many of the other people they know. Almost all sexual women with any sexual experience, for example, know for a fact a woman doesn't usually just jump straight on a guys d*ck with no foreplay at all and have a screaming orgasm in 30 seconds the way sex is often portrayed in movies: we know a lot of it is nonsense. It's not truly representative of how many people really are. That's something a lot of people who frequent AVEN seem to have quite a lot of trouble grasping. Just because you saw it on TV (even if it's shown all the time) doesn't mean it reflects reality perfectly!

I never said it was realistic, it's shortened and intensified because they're not going to have a sex scene for an hour. And you do understand that while you and some other sexuals don't like how sex is portrayed in media, doesn't mean it doesn't still attract most. Cause statistically, it does, which is why it hasn't gone away and has gotten even more obsurd. It sells and it does so because most people have sexual attraction without an emotional bond. These people may have some reason to abstain from sex until some milestone but that doesn't mean they do not experience sexual attraction.

 

17 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

Also, aces get turned on sometimes, and may even have sexual thoughts. They just don't have any desire for that to translate into actual sexual acts with other people. Aces bodies will sometimes even respond to sexual touch/sexual stimuli. So a lack of those things before wanting to engage in sex isn't really indicative of anything exactly except maybe a low libido. 

At least I agree with this, but my replies should have made that clear anyhow.

 

13 hours ago, asshole said:

That makes literally no logical sense. If 50% of the meals I eat are vegan, I'm not demi-vegan. I'm an omnivore. Even if some other omnivores include animal products in 90% of their food, I'm still an omnivore too. If Mary desires frequent sex with attractive strangers that she meets in the clubs at the weekend and Kevin has only ever been comfortable having sex when he's in a committed relationship even though he thinks plenty of people are attractive and Sarah has experienced sexual desire only once she's become close to someone emotionally and that's happened only once in her entire life so far, they're all still sexual people. Sarah in particular may have some life experiences that are similar to those of asexuals -- and I might have an experience similar to a vegan if I order more veggie burgers than hamburgers. If Sarah has any asexual friends, maybe they can commiserate over hookup culture together. If I have vegan friends, we can compare notes on who makes the best veggie burger. But I'm still an omnivore and Sarah is still sexual.

Your omnivore example doesn't make sense. Are you deliberately discarding the definition and identity because you don't understand it? Demisexual isn't someone who has a percentage of both as if it's some flavor of the day. The label specifically mentions it's place on the spectrum between sexual and asexual. Sexual attraction isn't about the act exactly. Someone who lacks sexual attraction to people can still have sex, masturbate, or what have you. This is basic stuff that the site already covers and various people have said how they masturbate or have high libido, act on it, but still have no attraction to it.

 

To say it's common that people don't have sexual attraction until an emotional bond would further invalidate sex in advertisements. I mean, do you have an emotional connection to Pepsi in order to find the models in their advertisements sexually attractive? What about strip clubs? Porn? Do they need emotional connections in order to be as successful as they are? What about dating? Do you just randomly go up to people and get to know them to see if you can develop an emotional bond or do you find them "hot" or "sexy" as a motive to get to know them in the first place?

 

 

9 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

Yes exactly. Even many asexuals experience that whole 'oh wow she's so pretty I'd like to get to know her better' thing, or getting a bit giggly and flustered because someone they deem aesthetically very attractive spoke to them. It isn't a requirement of being sexual that one also wants to bang that person just because they find them attractive!!

Sexual attraction and aesthetic attraction is different. A homosexual being complimented by the same sex is felt differently than being complimented by the opposite sex, given similar aesthetic attraction. I don't know where you get your statistics from but aesthetic attraction doesn't lead to "I'd like to get to know her better" on its own. Plenty of homosexuals appreciate the looks of the opposite sex but rarely does that give motive to want to pursue them for a deeper emotional connection. Which is a stark contrast to sexual attraction.

 

In contract, I've seen a lot of people motivated by sexual attraction to interact and get to know another. Not saying everyone is that way, but MOST are.

[Kayze]

10 hours ago, asshole said:

Not gonna lie, AVEN bullshit has messed with my perception of what it means to be sexual. Since when is desiring sex only after an emotional connection partly asexual? It's like people here have such a negative impression of sex and sexuality that if they find themselves having actual sexual feelings, they need to find a way to still be asexual somehow because ewwww sex is for dumb gross people. 

 

[...]

 

What's wrong with sex, guys? Why are so many of you so hellbent on making sure that asexuality includes anything that isn't nymphomania level interest in fucking? (Or, relatedly, conveying the message that having strong sexual feelings is bad.)

You're on an asexual forum and are surprised that many asexuals don't have sexual attraction? Really? This is like a heterosexual complaining about opposite sex attraction on a homosexual forum. 

 

If this has really messed with your perception and feel sexuals/sex are treated so bad, why are you here?

 

2 hours ago, Sally said:

You know what?   NOTHING fits societal norms.  Because there is no "society"; everyone is their own norm.  Perhaps you have not bothered to read what others have posted here, indicating  that commenters are their own norms.   You should do so.  

Societal norms are common denominators, not everything a single person has.

Norm: something that is usual, typical, or standard.
Social Norm: the accepted behavior that an individual is expected to conform to in a particular group, community, or culture.

 

Being heterosexual is a societal norm. Being sexual is a societal norm. Getting married is a societal norm. Having children is a societal norm.

 

Not being sexually attracted to everyone is a societal norm. Being sexually attracted to someone but not acting on it so that you can develop a meaningful bond is a societal norm. However, not experiencing sexual attraction to anyone isn't a societal norm. Meaning you personally don't find anyone "hot" or "sexy" nor does that motivate knowing them.

 

If you find someone sexy and appealing which then motivates you to get to know them more before you experience desire, that's not demisexuality and definitely not asexuality.

 

3 hours ago, Snao Cone said:

On the other side of the coin, I've seen some people who could very well be asexual identify as demisexual (or grey) because they aren't comfortable unequivocally saying "I'm never going to have sex no matter how much I love someone!" Who knows why that might be -- it could be from not wanting to be misunderstood as void of desire for intimacy, or it could be from not wanting to be seen as being anti-sex in general. This happens more with younger people too. It's a confusing topic, but we should at least all admit that it takes life experience to learn these sorts of things.

 

This is sort of like identifying as bisexual despite almost all evidence pointing to being attracted to one sex/gender, just because you never really know where life is taking you. Even if you feel like you're being true to yourself by using these labels, there's a point at which it's impractical to see yourself that way and identify that way to others. If you want to be understood you have to communicate properly. Making extremely specific labels to focus on assumed/perceived differences won't do this. That's not good communication.

Everything is a life experience, yes. But generally someone who identifies as demisexual is:

• An asexual not ready to give a definitive answer even though they've never experienced sexual attraction.
• A "former" asexual that experienced rare exceptions to their asexuality but only with a deep emotional connection.
• A sexual person confusing sexual attraction with an attraction towards having sex with anyone and/or confusing it with sexual abstinence; the practice of refraining from some or all aspects of sexual activity for medical, psychological, legal, social, financial, philosophical, moral, or religious reasons.

But I do agree that demisexuality tends to be a stepping stone into one or the other end. But just like bisexuality, there are people who truly are demisexual. I mean, claiming someone has to experience something to know for certain, means a heterosexual needs to try having sex with the same gender in order to know for sure they're heterosexual. Not everyone is uncertain.

[Kimmie.]

My very uneducated guess is that the one night stand after a night out is the thing that makes many aces confused.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kayze said:

You're on an asexual forum and are surprised that many asexuals don't have sexual attraction? Really?

It's more that some asexuals insist on defining sexual attraction incorrectly (case in point), then get angry at sexual people when we try to explain what sexual people actually experience.. (I know, it's baffling that sexual people would actually know how it would feel to be sexual, but we just do. Strange but true).

 

We just don't understand what you hate so much about us (and our sexuality in general) that you assume we are utterly ignorant and unable to understand our own sexuality, to the extent that you have to try to spell it out to us like we're babies.. while we are disagreeing with you and telling you that's not how it is for us. That's the issue.

 

I can't respond to the rest as I'm about to sit down to watch a movie, will have to wait until later. You just seem to have misunderstood what it is we are actually upset about. It's not that asexuals don't have sexual attraction. It's that we do have it, yet asexuals (who don't have it) insist on trying to explain sexual attraction to us like we're thick. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kimmie. said:

My very uneducated guess is that the one night stand after a night out is the thing that makes many aces confused.

It makes plenty of sexuals confused too. I mean, each to their own, but there are a LOT of sexual people who couldn't have sex with someone they just met. For plenty of us, sex is an act of shared love and emotional intimacy.. how could we want it with some drunk person we just met while out clubbing? Hah. But yeah, there are of course plenty who are capable of desiring sexual intimacy with a stranger.. that just doesn't mean that those who don't are some kind of ace

[Sally]

3 hours ago, Kayze said:

An demisexual, by its definition, is essentially an asexual except for some whom they've developed a deep emotional bond,

There is no hard-and-fast definition  of a demisexual.  In fact, many people on AVEN (including me) do not feel that there's any connection between demisexuals and asexuals.   This is still basically in the realm of opinion, of which yours is one, not THE definition.

[Grumpy Alien]

um... 

 

3 hours ago, Kayze said:

And as I've explained, most people experience sexual attraction before an emotional bond because sexual attraction isn't about the act. And yet here you go again saying "Being sexual isn't synonymous with desiring [indiscriminate] sex with attractive strangers" . You can experience sexual attraction and not act on it. I experience attraction to chocolate but don't act on it for various reasons; Maybe it's combined with something I dislike, was found on the ground, or I'm on a diet but that doesn't change that I'm still somewhat attracted to it.

Are... are you trying to tell us, people who have already said in the thread that we’re sexual... what sexuals experience? You’re telling sexuals that they’re wrong about what their own orientation is? I’m hesitant to believe that’s what you meant to do but you literally quoted "Being sexual isn't synonymous with desiring [indiscriminate] sex with attractive strangers" as being a false statement when every sexual here is trying to tell you it’s true. In that case, you are the one invalidating an orientation. It’s like AsexualMember1 saying “I don’t experience any sexual desires so I am asexual” and HetersexualMember1 commenting “Actually all asexuals have sexual desires.” Because again... You’re telling us, sexuals, that what we say is the foundation of our orientation and how we experience attraction is not accurate. Honestly, this made me laugh a bit. 

 

Let me be clear. I am sexual. I like sex. I’m sexually active. I have sexual desires. I’m sexually attracted to my partner. I do not find any strangers sexually attractive and never have. Many, if not most, people I know have similar experiences and call themselves __sexual and have active sex lives. This is not considered unusual by non-asexuals.

 

3 hours ago, Kayze said:

In contract, I've seen a lot of people motivated by sexual attraction to interact and get to know another. Not saying everyone is that way, but MOST are.

Who? And? So what? No one is saying sexuals can’t be sexually attracted to strangers. Of course it’s possible. But that is not nearly as common as you seem to think. I also think you might be under the impression that sexuals only experience sexual attraction? We might be motivated to get to know someone because they’re good looking and seem like someone we’d get along with. That doesn’t necessarily mean we’re sexually attracted to them. That may or may not be the case. It’s very individual.

 

This thread is getting out of hand because you’re unable to accept that you’re misunderstanding something due to lack of personal experience. I don’t expect you to know how sexuals feel, which is why we’ve tried to help... but here you are claiming you do.

[Kayze]

3 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

It's more that some asexuals insist on defining sexual attraction incorrectly (case in point), then get angry at sexual people when we try to explain what sexual people actually experience.. (I know, it's baffling that sexual people would actually know how it would feel to be sexual, but we just do. Strange but true).

 

We just don't understand what you hate so much about us (and our sexuality in general) that you assume we are utterly ignorant and unable to understand our own sexuality, to the extent that you have to try to spell it out to us like we're babies.. while we are disagreeing with you and telling you that's not how it is for us. That's the issue.

 

I can't respond to the rest as I'm about to sit down to watch a movie, will have to wait until later. You just seem to have misunderstood what it is we are actually upset about. It's not that asexuals don't have sexual attraction. It's that we do have it, yet asexuals (who don't have it) insist on trying to explain sexual attraction to us like we're thick. 

While I can't speak for every single asexual, generally Aces don't hate sexuals or sex. They just don't have an attraction to it and the forum is a place for us to explore this abnormality. Further more, you insist you're defining sexual attraction right and because you're sexual you somehow know better while disregarding that people without a the sensation probably understand what that sensation is in order to know they don't have it. The whole saying "you don't know what you have until it's gone." I'm not saying who knows better, I'm merely saying that stating that either one does is a fallacy.

The issue is sexual attraction isn't an attraction to the act. It's a sexual interest in an individual, whether or not you're going to engage in it. Aesthetic attraction isn't sexual attraction and isn't something that's a motive to pursue someone (e.g. a homosexual can appreciate the opposite sex but not want a deeper emotional connection). There's been multiple examples given yet it's constantly thrown back to "sexuals know better" and concluding that demisexuality isn't unique to warrant a label because it's "common."

So, it's not a hate or a personal attack on sexuals or sex. It's a debate on the definition of sexual attraction which is commonly confused by both sides and the ironic smug attitude with it. For the record, I'm not an asexual but a gray-asexual. I can understand having and not having sexual attraction.

 

2 hours ago, Sally said:

There is no hard-and-fast definition  of a demisexual.  In fact, many people on AVEN (including me) do not feel that there's any connection between demisexuals and asexuals.   This is still basically in the realm of opinion, of which yours is one, not THE definition.

A demisexual is defined on this very site as "a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form an emotional connection." And further as "the orientation being 'halfway between' sexual and asexual."

 

So the question is, what isn't the right definition? What's missing? What about the definition is wrong or too vague? Note that while I'm using this site's definition, they're very similar if not identical to other sources as well.

 

1 hour ago, Graceful said:

um... 

 

Are... are you trying to tell us, people who have already said in the thread that we’re sexual... what sexuals experience? You’re telling sexuals that they’re wrong about what their own orientation is? I’m hesitant to believe that’s what you meant to do but you literally quoted "Being sexual isn't synonymous with desiring [indiscriminate] sex with attractive strangers" as being a false statement when every sexual here is trying to tell you it’s true. In that case, you are the one invalidating an orientation. It’s like AsexualMember1 saying “I don’t experience any sexual desires so I am asexual” and HetersexualMember1 commenting “Actually all asexuals have sexual desires.” Because again... You’re telling us, sexuals, that what we say is the foundation of our orientation and how we experience attraction is not accurate. Honestly, this made me laugh a bit. 

As said above and in previous replies, I'm gray-asexual. I do experience sexual attraction in a limited, less common way. I know what the sensation is and the feeling of not having it as well. Constant assumption otherwise is just a logical fallacy. Stop with the "sexuals know better" smugness and actually debate the definition of sexual attraction, since that seems to be the confusion here.

 

1 hour ago, Graceful said:

Let me be clear. I am sexual. I like sex. I’m sexually active. I have sexual desires. I’m sexually attracted to my partner. I do not find any strangers sexually attractive and never have. Many, if not most, people I know have similar experiences and call themselves __sexual and have active sex lives. This is not considered unusual by non-asexuals.

And I said not all sexuals are the same, but that doesn't mean a personal experience is the majority. If sexual attraction was commonly only for deep emotional connections, then again, sexual advertisements would not work. Strip clubs would be failing businesses. Gaming companies wouldn't have sexualized female models in their games and hired at their booths at expos. Sexual attraction doesn't require an emotional connection. Marketing statistics show a trend. It doesn't mean every sexual person is sexually attracted to everyone. But it does show whether something is common or not.

 

1 hour ago, Graceful said:

Who? And? So what? No one is saying sexuals can’t be sexually attracted to strangers. Of course it’s possible. But that is not nearly as common as you seem to think. I also think you might be under the impression that sexuals only experience sexual attraction? We might be motivated to get to know someone because they’re good looking and seem like someone we’d get along with. That doesn’t necessarily mean we’re sexually attracted to them. That may or may not be the case. It’s very individual.

You're right, no one is saying sexuals can't be sexually attracted to strangers, including myself. As I also said not all sexuals are attracted to strangers. This thread became what sexual attraction is and the validity of demisexual as a label, since there's a claim that it's too common for the need of the label. I'd like to see something more than "I'm sexual and I know better" without anything to back it up but personal experiences. If this was just about what you personally feel and your own experiences have been, then fine. But this is about a label and about sexual attraction on a grand scale since not everyone's individual experiences are the same.

 

Also aesthetic attraction doesn't inherently lead to pursuing people for relationship, deeper emotions, or even friendship. An obvious example I've used multiple times, a homosexual and admiration of the opposite sex. I'm not saying it can't but there's the question if it's not triggering something else that creates the motive since aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction are typically linked.

And here's an article talking about the effectiveness of sex in ads: https://news.uga.edu/magazine-trends-study-finds-increase-in-advertisements-using-sex/

 

1 hour ago, Graceful said:

This thread is getting out of hand because you’re unable to accept that you’re misunderstanding something due to lack of personal experience. I don’t expect you to know how sexuals feel, which is why we’ve tried to help... but here you are claiming you do.

And regardless of me admitting what some of my experience is and multiple examples, many of you STILL assume what my experiences are and still mislabel me to continue a logical fallacy. You keep referring to me as an asexual that has no idea what sexual attraction is while unable to actually backup any of your counter statements of what sexual attraction is. So yes, I can agree this thread is getting out of hand but not for the reason you stated.

[Kayze]

 

15 hours ago, Whatsis said:

So, seems to me the problem might not be so much asexual people misunderstanding/misrepresenting sexual attraction, but rather sexual people doing just that? Arguably mistakingly identifying as demi or somewhere on the asexual spectrum?

Yes and no, both do it. But you can continue to seek a confirmation bias with the sexual people in this thread throwing around ad hominems in lieu of any legit counter arguments.

 

13 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

OK, can we all please take a deep breath. 

Debating is fine, but can we keep it to a debate

I'd like it to be a debate on demisexuality being misused as a label and of sexual attraction. But it seems to be devolving to a label knowing better based on personal experience and assuming another's experience/label instead of actually countering points in the argument with examples and even sources.

 

I guess if we can't get to debating the points of the argument, maybe this thread should be closed.

[Kimmie.]

2 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

It makes plenty of sexuals confused too. I mean, each to their own, but there are a LOT of sexual people who couldn't have sex with someone they just met. For plenty of us, sex is an act of shared love and emotional intimacy.. how could we want it with some drunk person we just met while out clubbing? Hah. But yeah, there are of course plenty who are capable of desiring sexual intimacy with a stranger.. that just doesn't mean that those who don't are some kind of ace

Yeah ofcource.

It is always the most vocal ones that are heard and in that way screw the view of others on that group. Some aces think that have one night stands atleast once every month is something every singel do. And ofcourse it goes the other way to the most vocal aces screw the view at them/us to.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kayze said:

"a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form an emotional connection."

And plenty of regular sexual people don't experience sexual attraction unless they're formed an emotional connection. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that?

 

1 hour ago, Kayze said:

As said above and in previous replies, I'm gray-asexual. I do experience sexual attraction in a limited, less common way. I know what the sensation is and the feeling of not having it as well. Constant assumption otherwise is just a logical fallacy. Stop with the "sexuals know better" smugness and actually debate the definition of sexual attraction, since that seems to be the confusion here.

But by the very fact that you identify as gray-asexual (though in the info under your avatar it just say's ace), you're admitting that you don't experience sexual attraction in a way many sexual people do. We are trying to explain our sexuality from the point of view of being sexuals, and you (as someone who identifies as ace) are trying to explain it back to us as though we are wrong. You can't base your idea of how we experience our sexuality solely on your experience of being someone who identifies as gray-ace, because the very fact that you feel the need to use that label means you're experiencing something very different than what we do.

 

It's like if a straight person was trying to explain homosexuality to a group of gay people and getting super defensive when the gay people disagree with them. The straight person is like 'I did kiss some guys in college to see if I was gay, so I know exactly what being gay feels like even if I'm actually straight. Get out of here with your smug attitudes acting like you know more about how it feels to be homosexual than I, a straight person, do'.. 

 

1 hour ago, Kayze said:

I'd like it to be a debate on demisexuality being misused as a label

That's literally exactly what everyone here is trying to discuss.. the fact that demisexuality is misused as a label by many people.

 

1 hour ago, Kayze said:

and of sexual attraction.

That's also exactly what we are trying to discuss.. we are trying to explain how sexual attraction feels for regular sexual people.

 

1 hour ago, Kayze said:

I guess if we can't get to debating the points of the argument, maybe this thread should be closed.

Everyone is debating the points of the argument. Suggesting the thread be locked just because you don't like the arguments that we are using in this debate seems very.. cheap.. to me.

[Kayze]

39 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

And plenty of regular sexual people don't experience sexual attraction unless they're formed an emotional connection. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that?

Ok, and I've said that not all sexual people experience sexual attraction with everyone they meet. The debate has been about what is or isn't common and what sexual attraction is, not what accounts for EVERY person. No one can claim to be everyone's voice.

 

39 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

But by the very fact that you identify as gray-asexual (though in the info under your avatar it just say's ace), you're admitting that you don't experience sexual attraction in a way many sexual people do. We are trying to explain our sexuality from the point of view of being sexuals, and you (as someone who identifies as ace) are trying to explain it back to us as though we are wrong. You can't base your idea of how we experience our sexuality solely on your experience of being someone who identifies as gray-ace, because the very fact that you feel the need to use that label means you're experiencing something very different than what we do.

So, because I'm gray-asexual, I don't experience an authentic sexual attraction? ...It's not some off brand sexual attraction, it's still the same sexual attraction sensation. And I know I have Ace there, Ace is typically an umbrella nickname used by those of the mostly asexual side of the spectrum these days. I could be more specific but that still doesn't excuse attacking label instead of the points/examples given to show their fallacy.

 

But instead, you're saying most sexuals experience sexual attraction a specific way and telling me that I'm defining sexual attraction wrong. Also that demisexual is a common thing that doesn't warrant a label despite the definition specifically talking about not experiencing ANY sexual attraction to ANYONE (which relates to asexuality) until an emotional bond is formed (which then they're fully sexual with that person). I'm merely saying sexual attraction doesn't have to result in a sexual act and can exist as an attraction (a feeling) in itself, with examples as to why this can be the case. Instead of countering that, I'm just being told I'm wrong because I'm not a sexual.

 

To be clear, gray-asexuality can be considered multiple things but for my specific case: "people who can enjoy and desire sex, but only under very limited and specific circumstances" is what relates to me. Well that and it's not a common experience still.

 

39 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

It's like if a straight person was trying to explain homosexuality to a group of gay people and getting super defensive when the gay people disagree with them. The straight person is like 'I did kiss some guys in college to see if I was gay, so I know exactly what being gay feels like even if I'm actually straight. Get out of here with your smug attitudes acting like you know more about how it feels to be homosexual than I, a straight person, do'.. 

How is it comparable? Someone who does experience sexual attraction at a different rate or with limited circumstances isn't the same as someone who doesn't experience same sex attractions. The only way this could somewhat relatable is if it's an asexual against a sexual, but even then that's debatable (whether someone who has it understands it better than someone who doesn't, since again they'd need to know what they don't have to know they don't have it).

 

It's also not super defensive, it's countering claims of what sexual attraction is while many sexual people are defensively telling me that my label means I'm wrong.

 

39 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

That's literally exactly what everyone here is trying to discuss.. the fact that demisexuality is misused as a label by many people.

Except the points given is that anyone that's asexual doesn't understand sexual attraction at all and therefore sexual people are 100% right. That's like saying asexuals speak for all asexuals; Similarly not all sexual people are going to be correct for every sexual person or (in a more relative case to the discussion) most sexual people.

 

39 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

That's also exactly what we are trying to discuss.. we are trying to explain how sexual attraction feels for regular sexual people.

You (and others) are saying what sexual attraction is by also saying the definition I provide is wrong but not why it's wrong. Sexual attraction isn't necessarily a different brand for a different label. Ace labels are merely one's rate or condition of experiencing sexual attraction (from never to rarely), not that the attraction itself is any different. So, I may not experience it as often or triggered by exactly the same things, but the sensation is still the same. So by that account, you can't tell me I don't understand sexual attraction.

 

I also never said there can't be an emotional aspect to it nor that it requires sexual acts (which has been a common thing here). I'm merely referring to a feeling outside of an action, that can be enhanced by other factors like emotions but also saying it doesn't require them (which is still not a case for everyone, some may require it).

 

39 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

Everyone is debating the points of the argument. Suggesting the thread be locked just because you don't like the arguments that we are using in this debate seems very.. cheap.. to me.

I fail to see how attacking someone's label, claiming inexperience (e.g. "16 year old asexuals", "youth asexuals"), assuming labels/experience of another, etc is at all points of the actual argument. It doesn't counter the points made nor the examples with those points, it only deflects to character attacks. So, instead of talking about labels and assuming another's experience, use statistics and logical examples of how a given point isn't infallible. That is the part I don't like.

 

Do note, I'm not accusing you of doing all those things but that "everyone" isn't debating the actual points and that what you quoted was targeted to participants in general.