Demisexuality

[user23974865]

I just learned what the term means.

 

Isn't that just, you know... plain normal? Am I missing something?

[bare_trees]

From what I understand, most people are capable of feeling attracted to people they don't know well and haven't bonded with emotionally.  That doesn't mean they automatically want to sleep with them; it just means they can experience attraction to them.

 

Demisexual people do not experience this initial attraction; it comes much later for them, if it comes at all.

[TheAP]

Define "normal". There are a lot of people who have casual sex/one-night-stands. If most people were demisexual, this would be seen as something weird, and waiting for marriage to have sex wouldn't be such a big deal. A demisexual person might be effectively asexual except for when they meet the rare person who sparks their sexual attraction. And anyway, if demisexuality is indeed common, it's good for people to be open about it, to help people see that it's not weird to be that way and they're not alone.

[user23974865]

22 minutes ago, TheAP said:

Define "normal".

I know, it's a nebulous thing. I'm talking exactly about widespread perception, not my own, and not anything formal or objective either. I don't mean "a majority" (though I do imply "something pretty common", unlike total asexuality).

 

22 minutes ago, TheAP said:

If most people were demisexual, this would be seen as something weird, and waiting for marriage to have sex wouldn't be such a big deal.

But "emotional bonds" never was synonymous with marriage, and today not even "a stable long-term relationship" is synonymous with marriage anymore. So I don't think one thing has that much to do with the other. The concept of waiting for marriage was always about (social / moral / financial) commitment, not much to do with emotions.

 

22 minutes ago, TheAP said:

And anyway, if demisexuality is indeed common, it's good for people to be open about it, to help people see that it's not weird to be that way and they're not alone.

This is closer to where I'm coming from. The question that comes to mind is: Is it actually a big deal socially speaking? Or is it something that the proverbial average person would, if anything, simply find unusual in a mostly neutral way? Isn't it functionally equivalent to not being interested in casual sex (which is, without a doubt, very much normal)?

[user23974865]

I think I should reframe my question. What I ask myself is:

 

Am I confused about it simply because I'm lucky enough to be living under a rock? Or are people jumping to conclusions about social expectations (because of social media or whatever) and then getting hung up on justifying things that never needed to be justified?

[Grumpy Alien]

I fit the definition of demisexual but do not identify as such because to me, that’s the majority of sexuals as well as an overly specific label.

[user23974865]

1 hour ago, Graceful said:

I fit the definition of demisexual but do not identify as such because to me, that’s the majority of sexuals as well as an overly specific label.

Past a certain age, I think even near-asexuality might be the norm. Sex just isn't that interesting once the novelty has worn off and your hormone levels have calmed down. But since we're talking about "identity" things, I'm cutting the "pro-label folks" some slack and assuming that the whole focus is on "young adults" (early twenties or so). Also, "demisexuality" might even be the norm among women in general, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm keeping the question gender-neutral for the sake of argument.

 

Other than that, well... yeah, pretty much what you said.  Especially when you consider how fuzzy the concepts (and each person's different understanding) of "sexual attraction" and "emotional bond" can be. Then it's just.... Why? Why complicate things like that? Why not just use regular in-context English sentences instead? I don't see much of a point in giving a definite-sounding name to something that remains essentially just as vague as if the name hadn't been used, if not vaguer.

 

I can imagine a lot of people "not recognizing / not accepting demisexuality" in a conversation simply because the very use of the word implies something out of the ordinary, and then it's just confusing, like "well, they must mean something weirder than just what they're describing". Or maybe the person goes "well that's normal" and the other one goes "no, you don't understand", and so on, only reinforcing the idea that "this demisexuality stuff must be something really weird that I just don't understand and don't want anything to do with", or "that person must be obsessed with sex subjects to be making that kind of distinction".

[Infinita_Nox]

I'm still figuring this out, I feel like Demi fits me more closely than A or Grey-A, simply because I don't feel any of that sexual attraction without an intense emotional commitment.

I have the emotional range of an angry teaspoon though, so fuzzy is a good descriptor. Maybe one day I'll figure out for a definite, but for now, Demi seems right to me. 🤔

[user23974865]

3 minutes ago, Infinita_Nox said:

I'm still figuring this out, I feel like Demi fits me more closely than A or Grey-A, simply because I don't feel any of that sexual attraction without an intense emotional commitment.

I have the emotional range of an angry teaspoon though, so fuzzy is a good descriptor. Maybe one day I'll figure out for a definite, but for now, Demi seems right to me. 🤔

Doesn't it make more sense to approach it as "a temperament/personality trait" rather than a feature of your sexuality in particular? You pretty much described it that way yourself. Is there any benefit from metaphorically attaching that as your middle name rather than simply observing or commenting on the fact whenever (if ever) it might be of any relevance?

[user23974865]

2 minutes ago, CBC said:

Whilst I pretty much agree with your thoughts about demisexuality being quite common, I don't agree with this bit. It's normal to have a lower libido as you age. It's normal for many couples who've been together a long time to have less sex (and yes, some do stop or it's very rare). But becoming asexual or near-asexual or whatever isn't the norm, having sex isn't mostly about the novelty of the act, and unless someone has an actual abnormal hormonal imbalance, hormones don't usually calm down to the point of never really wanting sex at all.

Well, if you say so, chances are you're right and I'm wrong. It was admittedly mostly speculation. I pay a lot of attention to what people seem to consider normal or not, but I'm really not an expert at "what normal people are like in reality". 

[Guest]

My understanding is that demisexuals typically think they are ace until they experience sexual attraction, and it may take years before that attraction ever develops.
Couple years back I thought I might be demi, but I had a desire for sexuality and had since my teens, even if I had never (and still haven't) been attracted to anyone in particular. That automatically clips me from the description of demisexual, who has no desire for sex at all until they form a close bond.

[user23974865]

8 minutes ago, humantoafault said:

My understanding is that demisexuals typically think they are ace until they experience sexual attraction, and it may take years before that attraction ever develops.

I can imagine that, and I can imagine someone using the word as a shorthand to refer to that type of situation if it's something that comes up often. But I still find it very strange to identify with something like that, because it seems more like it's about the evolution of doubt and perception than about what someone "is".

[Grumpy Alien]

I personally think labels should focus on WHO you CAN be attracted to, not HOW or WHEN. For example, asexual = no one and pansexual = anyone. Simple. Demisexual only describes the how and when, not the who. Not very helpful for everyday conversation.

[user23974865]

3 minutes ago, CBC said:

It's right there in the word 'orientation', which in a general sense pertains to the direction of something.

Words... with meaning!.... It's like oxygen filling my lungs.

[user23974865]

8 minutes ago, CBC said:

Words are useful things. As long as we generally stick to using them as defined.

I wouldn't necessarily say that "using them as defined" is what makes them useful, but that's a rabbit hole I'm not prepared to go into at this moment. 

[user23974865]

29 minutes ago, CBC said:

Meanings change, language isn't static, but awareness of how words are used is pretty vital to effective communication.

That, I will wholeheartedly agree with.

 

17 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I see you're getting the gist of AVEN.

LOL. What else can I say...

 

I've seen worse elsewhere though.

[LeChat]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

I see you're getting the gist of AVEN.

AVEN's always had "nerdy" people who've liked to read sex psychologists' research and discuss the minute specifics of peoples' sexuality, behavior etc.; that's one reason why I've liked it.

 

On 3/1/2019 at 9:06 PM, Graceful said:

I fit the definition of demisexual but do not identify as such because to me, that’s the majority of sexuals as well as an overly specific label.

21 hours ago, Graceful said:

I personally think labels should focus on WHO you CAN be attracted to, not HOW or WHEN. For example, asexual = no one and pansexual = anyone. Simple. Demisexual only describes the how and when, not the who. Not very helpful for everyday conversation.

 

Oh. I know someone who also doesn't like choosing a label for themselves, but I can understand how and why it's important to others.

 

For example, is it really correct to label someone in their 30s, who's a virgin, who's never dated anyone and isn't interested in dating, being a romantic relationship or marrying, having children, etc. (yet, who's admitted that, decades ago, when they were in school, they were sexually aroused by a couple of classmates and didn't pursue anything with them; that they sometimes feel a need to masturbate; and don't identify as asexual and repeatedly state they're not asexual, several times) as a "sexual," when most of society's definition when they hear "sexual" is someone who actually pursues and has had/or is in a sexual relationship, has dated, wants to marry/is married, have/has children, etc.?

 

Sex psychologists keep mentioning how AMAB people have strong, sexual desires/attraction to others, so it really doesn't seem correct to label an AMAB who mostly doesn't have that as a "sexual," when it'd mistake others into believing that they have a high libido/high sexual attraction to others.

 

That's probably one reason why terms like "demisexuality" exist because despite seemingly similar to an asexual who's single, a virgin, isn't interested in dating or having a romantic/sexual relationship, they say they've experienced an attraction or two to a couple of people in their lifetime and don't feel they're asexual (yet, it's obvious that they're also not exactly like "sexual" people who have dated, are married, have sexual relationships, children, etc., that their attraction is a little different from your average, typical, sexual person, too, because, despite apparently experiencing sexual attraction to a couple of classmates, decades ago, it didn't cause them to want/current want/desire to be in a romantic relationship or have a sexual relationship with anyone.) 

 

I did find it important and interesting to know about this person who's related to me because, at first, I mistook them for an asexual, like myself (which, apparently, I was wrong about, because I didn't know that they'd experienced a couple of times in their past, where they were sexually aroused by a couple of classmates).

 

If my relative labeled as a "sexual" to others, just because they'd felt sexually attracted to a couple of classmates, decades ago, those "sexuals" who have dated, are in relationships and are interested in having sexual relationships, etc. would probably wind up being disappointed because my relative doesn't have the same sexual experience or interest as they do, but whose life and personal, life interests are more common among asexuals, particularly aromantic asexuals.

[user23974865]

2 hours ago, InquisitivePhilosopher said:

For example, is it really correct to label someone in their 30s, who's a virgin, who's never dated anyone and isn't interested in dating, being a romantic relationship or marrying, having children, etc. (yet, who's admitted that, decades ago, when they were in school, they were sexually aroused by a couple of classmates and didn't pursue anything with them; that they sometimes feel a need to masturbate; and don't identify as asexual and repeatedly state they're not asexual, several times) as a "sexual," when most of society's definition when they hear "sexual" is someone who actually pursues and has had/or is in a sexual relationship, has dated, wants to marry/is married, have/has children, etc.?

Okay. I'll use my vivid imagination to give you a detailed hypothetical case then:

 

Imagine a person. Born male, never had the intention to change it. Was always repulsed by the thought of affectionate/sexual closeness with other males. Had a crush on a girl or two in kindergarten. Went through puberty slightly earlier than average. Always had high libido since then. Immediately noticed sexual attraction to naked women on TV. Later also to female classmates as they grew up. Had many crushes on female classmates over the years, sometimes connected to appearance, sometimes not. Was always both confused and repulsed by prevailing social practices, so never had any close physical or affectionate involvement in school years or early adulthood. Eventually had an anonymous friendship develop into an intimate emotional relationship without a flirting stage. Had sex at the age of 30, until the end of the relationship a couple months later. A few years later, he hasn't been in, isn't pursuing, and doesn't want to pursue another close/sexual relationship. He's not repulsed by that possibility, but doesn't consider it either. He's repulsed by the thought of casual sex. Still has active libido and experiences sexual attraction the same way as ever. Still finds attractive women pleasant to look at. Is adamant about never having children.

 

In terms of "[something]sexual", what is he? Would this type of nomenclature be more likely to be helpful or misleading when describing him? Would it help him understand himself better? If there isn't a word that matches his story, should there be one?

[user23974865]

6 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

I see you're getting the gist of AVEN.

 

6 hours ago, CBC said:

Wherever this "elsewhere" is, I hope I never encounter it...

 

Credit where credit is due though: so far I have encountered very few people on this site who I'd probably disagree with on almost anything, or who would automatically reject anything I say. I've noticed several instances where I and someone else have totally opposite and nearly irreconcilable opinions on something, but later the same day I'll easily agree with them on something else, or they'll agree with me, and no one seems to find it strange. That's good. 👍

[user23974865]

2 minutes ago, CBC said:

@burobu That's often how human interaction goes... I've yet to meet anyone who agrees with me on everything. That's essentially impossible; we're all individuals with different experiences and psychologies that shape our beliefs and opinions.

Have you been surfing the same internet as I have?... 

 

As far as I can tell, collective insanity is the norm. Forget about individual thought or making sense.

[user23974865]

3 minutes ago, CBC said:

That said, stick around and you'll surely meet a few you basically never agree with.  

As long as I don't get kicked out for repeatedly voicing my disagreement in, let's say, creative ways, it might be fun. 😁

[user23974865]

14 minutes ago, CBC said:

Hahahaha. Oh, well, that depends on what your idea of "creative" is, I guess... 🙃

There was a time when I liked to hang out in the narcissistic personality disorder section of a forum (mostly populated by diagnosed narcissists, butthurt people allegedly affected by narcissists, and people affected by real narcissists). Baiting and confusing groups 1 and 2 (while sympathizing with group 3) and then turning their arguments back at them was my hobby. They just don't know what to do when an argument isn't based on ego. It was practically like psychological self-defense classes. It was fun.

 

So... yeah. 

[roland.o]

On 3/1/2019 at 10:59 PM, burobu said:

I just learned what the term means.

Indeed? Which definition did you learn?

- doesn't experience primary sexual attraction, only secondary

- requires a strong emotional bond to experience sexual attraction

- requires an abnormally long timespan to experience sexual attraction

 

On 3/1/2019 at 10:59 PM, burobu said:

Isn't that just, you know... plain normal?

The nice thing about the third definition above is that it's not normal... by definition.

In the second definition, it depends on what you consider a strong emotional bond, as opposed to a regular one. How about "abnormally strong"?

The first definition has been mostly abandoned, I believe.

 

On 3/2/2019 at 11:18 PM, humantoafault said:

the description of demisexual, who has no desire for sex at all until they form a close bond

That's a new one for me. All the others I've come across were based on sexual attraction, not sexual desire.

 

 

On 3/2/2019 at 11:46 PM, CBC said:

It's right there in the word 'orientation', which in a general sense pertains to the direction of something.

Agreed. I consider "demisexual" as a qualifier for sexual orientations, but not an orientation itself.

 

On 3/2/2019 at 11:31 PM, disGraceful said:

I personally think labels should focus on WHO you CAN be attracted to, not HOW or WHEN.

Label is a very general term. Why should there be only labels for sexual orientations, but not for other characteristics of someone's sexuality? Whether or not that is useful in conversation depends on the conversation. Personally, I don't discuss my sexuality in everyday conversations

 

If I feel that some characteristic of my sexuality shuts me out from what I believe is the general populace, and some label for that characteristic reassures me that I'm part of a whole group of people like that, rather than just the odd one out, then the label has served a purpose. Demisexual did that for me two years ago. I never doubted I was hetero, so an orientation label wouldn't have been of any help to me. I no longer use that label, but I will be forever grateful that it exists. Finding it was a major step in my journey to where I am today.

[user23974865]

5 hours ago, roland.o said:

Which definition did you learn?

- doesn't experience primary sexual attraction, only secondary

- requires a strong emotional bond to experience sexual attraction

- requires an abnormally long timespan to experience sexual attraction

The second one.

5 hours ago, roland.o said:

Why should there be only labels for sexual orientations, but not for other characteristics of someone's sexuality?

Other labels can sometimes be useful (every single noun is a label, after all), and just a few hours ago I came across one that did strike me as immediately meaningful with only minimal context ("effective asexuality"). It works because it's based on mostly objective things (willingly not having sex, and having no intention to have sex in the future) and is based on common usage of the words involved. And it's something that implies tangible and intuitive effects and commonalities shared by all or most people who fall under that category.

 

But most of these hair-splitting sexuality things are both 1) impossibly too subjective to convey with an arbitrary neologism, and 2) only very indirectly connected to tangible objective reality. So in practice it's just words that have different meanings to different people, who then assume some implied commonality which isn't there, and then eventually fight over who can claim the word, because they feel expelled from their imaginary group by the simple revelation that other people meant different things. It doesn't further communication or understanding. It furthers miscommunication and misunderstanding.

[MLJ]

On 3/3/2019 at 12:51 PM, InquisitivePhilosopher said:

That's probably one reason why terms like "demisexuality" exist because despite seemingly similar to an asexual who's single, a virgin, isn't interested in dating or having a romantic/sexual relationship, they say they've experienced an attraction or two to a couple of people in their lifetime and don't feel they're asexual (yet, it's obvious that they're also not exactly like "sexual" people who have dated, are married, have sexual relationships, children, etc., that their attraction is a little different from your average, typical, sexual person, too, because, despite apparently experiencing sexual attraction to a couple of classmates, decades ago, it didn't cause them to want/current want/desire to be in a romantic relationship or have a sexual relationship with anyone.) 

 

I did find it important and interesting to know about this person who's related to me because, at first, I mistook them for an asexual, like myself (which, apparently, I was wrong about, because I didn't know that they'd experienced a couple of times in their past, where they were sexually aroused by a couple of classmates).

 

If my relative labeled as a "sexual" to others, just because they'd felt sexually attracted to a couple of classmates, decades ago, those "sexuals" who have dated, are in relationships and are interested in having sexual relationships, etc. would probably wind up being disappointed because my relative doesn't have the same sexual experience or interest as they do, but whose life and personal, life interests are more common among asexuals, particularly aromantic asexuals.

This. I do agree that there are plenty of sexual people who "only feel sexual attraction with an emotional bond," but I think that is very different from an asexual person who "only feels sexual attraction with an emotional bond."

 

I use the term demisexual to describe myself because I am effectively asexual. I have zero libido and don't masturbate. I have no interest in having any sort of romantic or sexual relationship. I'm not sex repulsed, I don't think sex is icky or gross - but I don't physically enjoy any sexual activity and sex means nothing to me emotionally. Even when I was married, sex was always just one of those things you were supposed to do.  I figured there was something wrong with me that I didn't like it. Overall, I find sex a curious but somewhat bizarre behavior that I can't quite understand why most people want to engage in.

 

HOWEVER, I did fall in love over 20 years, and I had my first experience of sexual attraction then. (It was unrequited, so I have no idea if I would have enjoyed sex IRL.) I've also had one other experience that I'd say is at least very similar to sexual attraction (except that I would absolutely NOT want to actually have sex with him). So I don't think of myself as "purely" asexual. I do know what sexual attraction feels like. And the fact that I know what it feels like means that I can see very clearly that 99+% of the time I DON'T feel something that I assume is what drives the majority of people to continually seek out sexual relationships.

 

Based on a lot of what I've read, if you've ever felt sexual attraction (the "one drop of sexual attraction" theory, lol), that means that you're sexual, not asexual. But I don't agree with that. There's nothing about me that makes me feel like a "sexual person." I relate to how asexual people feel, not to how sexual people feel. If I'm a sexual person, I'm a failure because I completely suck at being sexual. But if there are only four acceptable quadrants - heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual - and asexual means never ever feeling sexual attraction to anyone, then that would put me in the heterosexual box. And I don't think "heterosexual" accurately describes my sexual orientation.

 

It may be that the term "demisexual" isn't being used in an effective way and needs to be redefined or thrown out. But there still needs to be a term to describe someone like @InquisitivePhilosopher's relative or me. Maybe the term asexual just needs to be broadened to recognize that even people with an "asexual orientation" may on rare occasions experience sexual attraction.

[user23974865]

5 hours ago, MLJ said:

It may be that the term "demisexual" isn't being used in an effective way and needs to be redefined or thrown out. But there still needs to be a term to describe someone like @InquisitivePhilosopher's relative or me. Maybe the term asexual just needs to be broadened to recognize that even people with an "asexual orientation" may on rare occasions experience sexual attraction.

Your reasons for "identifying as demisexual" seem pretty reasonable to me, I'll admit. But the thing is everyone is different. There's too many variables. It makes sense when you say that you sort of see yourself as asexual but at the same time feel like it's inaccurate and maybe misleading to say that you are. But every person who has that in common with you will have different reasons why the do and at the same time don't view themselves as asexual. Any particular stretching or shrinking of the term will leave a lot of people discontented.

 

That's why I think terms like "graysexual" are more, I don't know, "honest", for lack of a better word. It's an undefined and unspecified gray area, sometimes effectively like one side, but sometimes effectively like the other side across the line. Anything further than that is just very unlikely to be successfully encapsulated in a word that can be understood and agreed upon. No way of categorizing things is ever perfect. Assuming that it really is a good idea to categorize them (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't), the best solution is to stick to the things that can be agreed upon and concisely expressed, and then acknowledge the limitations.

[MLJ]

5 minutes ago, burobu said:

Your reasons for "identifying as demisexual" seem pretty reasonable to me, I'll admit. But the thing is everyone is different. There's too many variables. It makes sense when you say that you sort of see yourself as asexual but at the same time feels like it's inaccurate and maybe misleading to say that you are. But every person who has that in common with you will have different reasons why the do and at the same time don't view themselves as asexual. Any particular stretching or shrinking of the term will leave a lot of people discontented.

 

That's why I think terms like "graysexual" are more, I don't know, "honest", for lack of a better word. It's an undefined and unspecified gray area, sometimes effectively like one side, but sometimes effectively like other side across the line. Anything further than that is just very unlikely to be successfully encapsulated in a word that can be understood and agreed upon. No way of categorizing things is ever perfect. Assuming that it really is a good idea to categorize them, the best solution is to acknowledge the limitations.

I suppose the fact that "graysexual" is vague and undefined is why I don't care for it a whole lot. Demisexual fits me exactly. I am an asexual person who, on the very rare occasions that I feel sexual attraction (which would be, at the most, twice in over 40 years of life), feels it when there is a strong emotional connection. There are certainly reasons why other, mostly asexual, people might occasionally feel sexual attraction, but I do think "because of a strong emotional connection" is a common one.

 

However, I really think demisexual should only be applied to people in the "asexual quadrant." I get a bit annoyed when people say, I don't get attracted to random people on the street - does that mean I'm demisexual? I know plenty of sexual people who don't get attracted to random strangers. Lots and lots of sexuals only feel sexual attraction when there is an emotional bond. But there is a very big difference between someone who is primarily "sexual" and only feels attraction with an emotional bond and someone who is primarily "asexual" and only feels attraction with an emotional bond.

[user23974865]

46 minutes ago, MLJ said:

However, I really think demisexual should only be applied to people in the "asexual quadrant." I get a bit annoyed when people say, I don't get attracted to random people on the street - does that mean I'm demisexual? I know plenty of sexual people who don't get attracted to random strangers. Lots and lots of sexuals only feel sexual attraction when there is an emotional bond. But there is a very big difference between someone who is primarily "sexual" and only feels attraction with an emotional bond and someone who is primarily "asexual" and only feels attraction with an emotional bond.

That makes perfect sense. Realistically speaking, though, I don't see any hope for that word and other words like it to effectively be limited to the instances where they would actually make sense, so they'll remain largely useless in many or most instances.

 

These days, with Dr. Google and Wikipedia, and with everyone freaking out about how they're not normal and how they're marginalized for it and whatever (when the truth is basically that everyone is getting alienated), it's even common for people to appropriate diagnosic labels for themselves. In those cases, it's annoying, but at least we can say that it's ultimately defined by the diagnostic manual, and only technically applies as an assessment by a professional. But there isn't (and there shouldn't be) an ultimate authority for sexuality categories. So it's subject to "the marketplace of ideas". Not a good prospect...

[Sage Raven Domino]

Demisexuality would be very common in a non-hypersexual culture and actually was such in the past. The fact that more than a few people have felt the need to identify with this label in the modern Western culture indicates that sex is too often expected too early during dating. I blame the culture.

[anisotrophic]

@burobu I really appreciate this thread as I've had similar reservations!

 

One thing I wonder is whether sometimes what's happening is that someone on the young end identifies as "feeling asexual", and tells others about it... but then they get close to someone and discover sexual attraction. I would say they tried to identify too soon, and sexuality sometimes doesn't manifest until later. But at that point they're stuck walking back an identity they told people about, and feel a need to continue it in some sense.