Jump to content

what is grey/demi?


PiF

Recommended Posts

Reading this post I'm suddenly struck by the popular concept of a "spectrum" between asexuality and normal sexuality. Assuming it is based on feelings of sexual attraction, how is one "more sexual" than someone else?

So is a person who feels secondary but not primary sexual attraction is less sexual than someone who feels both? Conversely, where does someone who feels primary but not secondary, if such a creature exists, fit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was working on a chart last night (but I can't post it with my phone) and I think it might help quite a bit...once it's done and some input is gathered...I can't post it at all with my phone though, so I'll have to describe it and see what you think.

From what people have been saying, based on the primary and secondary sexual attraction and desire model:

Primary attraction: based on looks, smell, etc

Secondary attraction: based on relationship, emotional connection, etc

Primary desire: desire for self pleasure and not partner's pleasure

Secondary desire: desire for partner's pleasure, conception of children, etc

Asexuals: experience none of these, or can experience secondary sexual desire.

Demisexuals: experience secondary sexual attraction. May also experience secondary sexual desire

It is assumed that "sexuals" (or to squeak in a new term, verisexuals [sexuals]) experience all of these to some degree.

If we break them down into "low", "medium", and "high" - what do you guys think about assuming that verisexuals experience either:

- high level in all four areas

- high level in three areas and medium in one

- high level in two areas and medium in the other two

If that definition works for everyone, then the leftover area is "gray", which can include demisexuals from earlier.

Thoughts? It's hard to explain properly how the chart shows this but I will post it as soon as I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could, like, have multiple spectra; one for each quality. And then we could stop pretending that there's one spectrum that can divide people up based on all of those qualities...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's what this chart does. Basing it on attraction and desire. I know there are probably some other ways of lOoking at it.

This one...basically imagine a 4 way Venn diagram with each circle representing a quality. Each circle has 3 layers for low, middle, and high. High in the middle. Outside of the circle (and in the correct place in secondary desire) is asexual. there's a spectrum for each category. Not sure where to draw the line for sexuals still, and it's not a hard line. But it works conceptually.

Any input on the idea, let me know...I jus sort of compiled what everyone was saying

It looks really nice, I wish I could uploadd it now :(

I'll try for Sunday lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AHHH OMG THE BUS HAS WIFI

Okay here's the final product basically. I included some sample points to further explain sort of what I was thinking.

Image5-1.jpg

I have some versions that are plain but I just wanted everyone's thoughts on it lol.

Good model, bad model? *shrug*

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got one question: What program did you use for that? O_O I'm rather impressed.

Now lemme actually study it. XD

EDIT: Maybe my understanding of primary sexual desire is confused, but can't someone feel only primary sexual desire and be asexual as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got one question: What program did you use for that? O_O I'm rather impressed.

Now lemme actually study it. XD

EDIT: Maybe my understanding of primary sexual desire is confused, but can't someone feel only primary sexual desire and be asexual as well?

The definition of an asexual is somebody who does not feel sexual attraction. Desire has nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's something I was wondering too, actually...whether I should include asexuals in the primary sexual desire thing.

(keep in mind I'm like...semi-homeless ATM, and was reading the definitions and this on my phone while trying to draw the chart on my laptop. LOL I'm overly dedicated to this. I'm actually typing this on my laptop in a Greyhound with wifi that's stuck in a traffic jam. lol)

Anyway here's that bit of the definition that caused me to leave it out.

According to the model, asexuals are people who lack primary sexual desire.

I know the wiki isn't completely perfect always...but I refrained from making the assumption myself and figured I should ask. :lol:

By the AVEN definition of just not experiencing attraction, they should theoretically be included in the "primary desire experiencing" section...*shrug*

But I also know from my time on AVEN that it's super super common for asexuals to be either repulsed or indifferent. It's a rare asexual, I think, that would actually desire sex...but I wouldn't want to leave them out. :wacko:

I based the idea off another model on the wiki as well when I decided to leave it out

not interested model: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Not_interested

oh and the programs I used:

AutoCAD for the circles (yeah...we engineering majors get the fancy graphing tools)

Paint Shop Pro 7 for everything else (old program but I love it because I get how to make it do cool things lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some versions that are plain but I just wanted everyone's thoughts on it lol.

Good model, bad model? *shrug*

How arbitrary are your "sample" points? If they're really arbitrary, it's not a big deal, but it needs to be noted somewhere - otherwise it looks like the points are the identities, not examples of people who might have those identities.

Specifically, I've never seen anything about primary/secondary desire (per Rabger's model, though not every definition uses Rabger's) in any definition of demisexuality I've read; and the point plotted (no primary desire) doesn't reflect my experience as a demisexual - when I want to have sex with someone, I definitely want it for my own pleasure too. :P Which isn't to say that there aren't demisexuals who don't have primary desire! Just that they aren't the definition.

Maybe a better way would to call the points imaginary people, with a description of their own identities/experiences? Like... For where you've put "Asexual," instead it could be:

Maggie

No Primary Attraction

No Secondary Attraction

No Primary Desire

High Secondary Desire

Identifies as Asexual

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sample points are just that - sample points. They just show a few random spots on the chart, and what each spot means. Ie, if the graph was otherwise "naked" and there was a spot there, the related description is how to interpret that spot. They're not meant to be indicative of the entire population who identifies within that label. Each shape (sort of like skewed diamonds where the circles intersect and overlap) within the entire outlined (with the glow, and represented with a different texture) label area represents a sort of person that could fit under that label.

So there's three "types" of asexual in the red area, for example - in addition to the asexuals who experience none of the four things, there's asexuals who experience high, medium, or low secondary desire :)

So yeah, think of them as imaginary people. :)

Like for me...it might be:

Birdwing

Some sort of primary attraction (lol)

Some sort of secondary attraction (again, lol)

High primary desire

Low secondary desire

Identifies as gray

:)

The other thing I'm having a hard time figuring out...what do I mean by low and medium and high for attraction? Lol. Like, does it mean the attraction itself is intense for "high", there are a lot of people one is attracted to for "high"...hmm. Thoughts?

It's a bit more obvious for desire. Lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could, like, have multiple spectra; one for each quality. And then we could stop pretending that there's one spectrum that can divide people up based on all of those qualities...

And then we could also stop pretending that there are people who are more "normal" than other people, since we will be able to see that in fact, everyone is different, and different IS normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the issues (and I'm just as guilty of this as anybody) is that we're too busy asking greys what the difference between greys and sexuals are and not asking sexuals the same question or listening to their answers. The whole thread to me is getting somewhat confusing and I think that part of it is because we're only getting one side of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the issues (and I'm just as guilty of this as anybody) is that we're too busy asking greys what the difference between greys and sexuals are and not asking sexuals the same question or listening to their answers. The whole thread to me is getting somewhat confusing and I think that part of it is because we're only getting one side of it.

The problem is there are many sexuals don't think there ARE any differences... or maybe I'm just looking at the wrong sample group. XD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the issues (and I'm just as guilty of this as anybody) is that we're too busy asking greys what the difference between greys and sexuals are and not asking sexuals the same question or listening to their answers. The whole thread to me is getting somewhat confusing and I think that part of it is because we're only getting one side of it.

The problem is there are many sexuals don't think there ARE any differences... or maybe I'm just looking at the wrong sample group. XD

Maybe so, but there has to be a reason why the sexual allies here identify as sexual whereas most of the greys (including myself) seemed to find the definition after looking for reasons why they are different. If sexuals can say what makes them similar then we can chime in and say "yea, but we don't feel X, Y or Z" or "we don't feel it X, Y or Z like that". It just makes sense to look at it from all sides really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*shrug*

I was thinking of making a poll related to this graph, asking what people identify as and what sorts of attraction/desire level they experience. Put one in here in The Gray Area, one in the Sexual Friends, and one somewhere in an Asexual thread...

direct people to the poll for their specific orientation.

then get the data for opinions...have a better understanding of any "divide" or if there is one.

thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that idea. I was thinking of bringing up the sexual thing here and then asking sexuals in the allies forum but I'll leave the polls up to you because you're better than me at those :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang, I go outta' town for a day, and a thread goes wildly active without me. Just my luck.

I'm going to say 'drive' instead of 'desire', since desire is a bit nebulous for meaning, and could be psychological or biological, while drive is pretty much straightforward, more visceral.

Note that I consider both attraction and drive to be visceral reactions that are immediate in nature: your actual reaction to them, and your emotions, etc. you can control, but attraction and drive are not consciously regulated.

Here's how I sort it:

Attraction-based:

A- = No primary OR secondary attraction, or else both are extremely weak. Degree or type of drive irrelevant.

Demi- = Only one type of attraction, typically secondary, is present, or else one attraction is extremely weak compared to the other. Degree or type of drive irrelevant.

Grey- = Either or both attractions are present, but the degree of them is diminished sufficiently to be not-verisexual or veriromantic.

Degree or type of drive irrelevant.

Veri- = Both attractions are present to at least moderate degree, even if one is somewhat stronger than the other. Degree or type of drive irrelevant.

Drive-based:

Non- = No primary OR secondary desire, or else both are extremely weak. Attractions irrelevant.

Semi- = Only one type of desire, typically secondary, is present, or else one desire is extremely weak compared to the other. Attractions irrelevant.

Hypo- = Either or both desires are present, but the degree of them is diminished sufficiently to be not-isosexual or isoromantic ("average libido/romantic drive"). Attractions irrelevant.

Iso- = Both desires are present to at least moderate degree, even if one is somewhat stronger than the other. Attractions irrelevant.

Attraction is SPECIFIC TO THE TARGET, the person you know or are viewing. Attraction to one target may vary in type or degree from another target. It determines who the target is on whom drive is enacted (or not enacted).

Drive is GENERAL TO THE SUBJECT, the person experiencing it, and is not related to the target of attraction. Drive is consistent no matter who the target is, but it doesn't determine who the target is.

In conclusion, a demisexual person can in fact have a very strong sex drive, but the factor of attraction that would initially determine when and with whom they have sexual activity... that's where one attraction is missing or vastly weaker than the other, and it has an impact at a visceral level on if they are willing to have sex or not with a given person.

------------

Now, aside from definitions, whether or not they're widely accepted, I have a bit of speculative theory:

Attraction to a specific individual comes in stages, we'll call them Stage 1 and Stage 2 for now.

Suppose attraction occurs in an order of priorities, and Stage 2 can only happen AFTER Stage 1 has occurred actively.

Now suppose the two TYPES of attraction, primary and secondary, can actually have different priority, not just different degree, for a given person.

I posit that, for a verisexual, Primary Sexual Attraction is Stage 1. Secondary is Stage 2. This means that, for a verisexual person to be attracted to somebody for reasons other than the instantly-perceivable scent and appearance and so on, they FIRST have to be attracted to the instantly-perceivable.

If that instant interest is not obtained, they will not bother to get close enough to learn the things that are only learned through emotional connection and close interaction and exchange of thoughts and ideas.

If the verisexual person has sufficient drive of either type, and if the person has achieved Stage 1, primary sexual attraction, then they are able to want sex with that specific person, even if there is no Stage 2 connection, in this case the secondary sexual attraction. However, they cannot reach Stage 2, with or without drive, if they lack Stage 1, the primary attraction.

Now suppose a demisexual: Secondary Sexual Attraction is Stage 1. Primary is Stage 2. This means that, for a demisexual person to be attracted to somebody for reasons other than those only learned through emotional/mental connections, they FIRST have to be attracted to the emotional/mental factors.

If that psychological interest is not obtained, they will not be able to transition to an awareness of the instantly-perceivable as something attractive.

If the demisexual person has sufficient drive of either type, and if the person has achieved Stage 1, secondary sexual attraction, then they are able to want sex with that specific person, even if there is no Stage 2 connection (in this case, stage 2 = primary attraction).

However, they cannot reach Stage 2, with or without drive, if they lack Stage 1, the secondary attraction.

This is what allows such things as one-night stands.

I think that in the case of a demisexual, sometimes attraction 1 isn't missing so much as... it's low-priority, extremely low priority compared to attraction 2. They function as stages, and the stages must occur in order for them to occur at all.

This theory would explain cases in which the demi does actually develop primary attraction for their partner, after having secondary attraction for a long time.

The primary doesn't necessarily have to be NONEXISTENT to be demi... it just has to be so low-priority compared to the secondary attraction, that it cannot occur at all until the secondary attraction is in place.

Again, just a theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i was going to stay out of this one but as you mentioned me directly i feel your effort requires a reply out of decency for that effort..thanks for wanting me to come back into the debate

Sorry Pif, but I DO take offence at this assumption that any form of sexual attraction must immediately equal sexual. That's like saying that if a sexual doesn't find some people attractive, then they must be grey-A or asexual, which isn't the case.

no..thats like you saying whatever you want because you want to belong to one rather than admit you don't

if i break the speed limit..i don't grey break it....if i am a recovering alcoholic..and drink again i am not a grey alcoholic...if i steal..i am not a grey thief..if i experience sexual attraction..i am not asexual

by all means call yourself something you feel happy with but..

i am sorry if the truth offends...now some may try and twist and turn the definition of what an asexual is to suit purpose..but if you experience sexual attraction you are not asexual

and if i may then leave you with some wise words someone recently said

Deal with it, bros.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On a random note...there are 11 guests reading this thread.

But PiF, I think that the best way to explain it is this...

I like cake but only certain types of cake. That doesn't mean that I don't like cake in general. I identify as a cake lover because truthfully, cake is delicious.

Now let's say that the cake-lover's society says that to join you have to love cheesecake. Personally I don't think cheesecake is real cake so I wouldn't be a true cake-lover by their standards. However, I still would identify as a cake-lover because I like most, but not all, types of cake.

I don't know if that made any sense but...yea

Link to post
Share on other sites

my posts do attract a good following tea :lol:

tea you just showed me you like cheesecake :lol: :cake:

trouble is as with most things..you need a start base..an asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction

now..under that most of aven would not be here

where it then becomes a problem and when people become confused...is that rather than face the fact of what asexuality is..so many then try and put thier own twists and turns into it just to feel they are something they are not ..just so they belong..they ultimately end up trying to wipe out what the definition is

now it doesn't get any easier than this

if you feel sexual attraction..you are not asexual..yes..it really is that simple

Link to post
Share on other sites
if you feel sexual attraction..you are not asexual..yes..it really is that simple

Right. That doesn't mean, however, that you don't fit into a grey area someplace, by lack of a type of sexual attraction, or by having one or more types of sexual attraction occurring only very weakly.

If you feel all types of sexual attraction to an average-or-higher degree, then you're verisexual. If you feel one or more of them very weakly, or if you lack one or more of them, but not all of them, then you are grey-ace. If you get more specific, you find demisexual. If you lack attraction entirely, regardless of libido, then you are asexual. If you lack libido, regardless of attraction or lack of attraction, then you are nonsexual.

These are terms of higher and higher degrees of specificity and extremity. Asexual, with no other qualifiers, is the purest extreme lack of sexual attraction. Verisexual is the range of all attractions, without lackings in any of them. Grey-asexual is the range between total lack and at least partial inclusion.

The terms exist for clarity and precision of self-descriptions to others. Calling yourself grey-ace isn't denying that an asexual person lacks all sexual attraction. It's simply indicating a nonspecific diminishment of extremity.

You don't have to erase an entire group of AVENites and others off-site just because you find a descriptor distasteful.

It really is that simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

my posts do attract a good following tea :lol:

tea you just showed me you like cheesecake :lol: :cake:

trouble is as with most things..you need a start base..an asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction

now..under that most of aven would not be here

where it then becomes a problem and when people become confused...is that rather than face the fact of what asexuality is..so many then try and put thier own twists and turns into it just to feel they are something they are not ..just so they belong..they ultimately end up trying to wipe out what the definition is

now it doesn't get any easier than this

if you feel sexual attraction..you are not asexual..yes..it really is that simple

Actually I don't like cheesecake. Like I said, not real cake. :P

I do agree that we need a start base and birdie's polls are a good way to get a good base from every side. Like I said before, part of the problem was that we weren't taking the sexuals into account. I think if we get a good number of sexuals who vote on that poll (and answer a few open-ended questions if birdie will let me ask them :P) then we narrow this down better.

I also agree with the fact that if you don't experience sexual attraction you aren't asexual. I've started using the phrase "asexual spectrum" to

talk about my orientation with others mainly because if I say asexual it will just confuse the hell out of people that do know that I've experienced levels of sexual attraction. This is also bad for visibility because to me half of visibility is education and giving the wrong type of education is more harmful than hurtful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The terms exist for clarity and precision of self-descriptions to others. Calling yourself grey-ace isn't denying that an asexual person lacks all sexual attraction. It's simply indicating a nonspecific diminishment of extremity.

no ..it's changing the definition to suit purpose

You don't have to erase an entire group of AVENites and others off-site just because you find a descriptor distasteful.

It really is that simple.

erase? unless the grey forum suddenly went poof and dissapeared then no one erased anything..melodramatic however incorrect

Link to post
Share on other sites
no ..it's changing the definition to suit purpose

What definition is being changed, in your skewed perceptions? Asexual remains asexual: lacking sexual attraction.

Grey-ace is an entirely independent concept of asexual; it derives directly from asexual only to the same degree that 'asexual' derives from 'sexual'. They share a root word.

Their definitions are not mutually dependent or even necessarily related.

erase? unless the grey forum suddenly went poof and dissapeared then no one erased anything..melodramatic however incorrect

You dislike the use of that term? Fair enough, then let's switch it with 'deny the existence of [that which exists]'.

You don't have to deny the existence of an entire totally extant group of AVENites and others off-site just because you find a descriptor distasteful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like you tepid ... You have the ability to write words I've never said and dress those falsehoods up like a jackie Collins novel

I'll phrase it another way for you

If an asexual is some one that does not experience sexual attraction...and a grey/Demi/semi does ...why is that blatantly obvious contradiction now not a contradiction at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll need to clarify what you consider a blatantly obvious contradiction.

What part of "grey-ace is not same as asexual, therefore no definition has been changed" is a contradiction?

A duck is a bird, a lizard is a reptile, and a monkey is a mammal. I'm not calling a grey-ace an ace. This isn't calling ducks mammals, because I'm not assigning the one to be a subset of the other. It's not. A demisexual is a subset of grey-asexual. Grey-asexuals are not a subset of asexuals. They are related on a spectrum shared with verisexuals in the way that a bird is somewhere on a spectrum between reptiles and mammals for warm-bloodedness, egg-laying, and levels of complexity and intelligence. They are not subsets of each other, and by calling a duck a bird and not a reptile, we aren't changing the definition of reptile or of bird.

If a taxonomic analogy isn't operable enough for you to recognize that no contradictions are being made, then I really don't know how else to clarify the point to you. Bring your point to me, at the highest clarity you can afford, please, because right now it looks to me like you're saying "grey is just an invented term to make sexuals feel included and special, and there is no possible way a spectrum of degrees can be drawn between asexual-in-totality and sexual-in-totality; it's hard either-or."

If that is the entirety of your point, then I must respectfully and firmly disagree with you, in the same way I would disagree with anybody who claims that gender is always and only binary, hard either-or.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not calling a grey-ace an ace... They are not subsets of each other,

Thank you Tegid. That's what I was trying to say earlier. I think grey is a separate category, not part of one or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ We've been using "ace" here to mean "part of the asexuality spectrum"...not just "asexual".

The "spectrum" includes grays. I guess. I've never really seen it defined. *shrug*

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not calling a grey-ace an ace... They are not subsets of each other,

Thank you Tegid. That's what I was trying to say earlier. I think grey is a separate category, not part of one or the other.

This^^^^ from both is agreeing to what I have been saying.. Thank you for the agreement

I'll leave this one for a while now

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...