Jump to content

Is demisexual even a real sexual orientation?


SugarSprinkledFox

Recommended Posts

Kitty Spoon Train
If people wish to identify the label as an orientation, that is fine you don't have to agree with it but to not acknowledge the idea's existence is just another form of narrow minded traditionalism. I think many here may disagree where to categorize this particular label but most I think would say it exists.

I've been thinking of dropping all labels and just being "me". But really, I just don't know how to do it without sounding like a total douche...

I'm thinking of a scenario such as meeting someone who's interested in me - and getting sexual on a fairly normal modern dating time frame. It's pretty much impossible not to lose them by simply holding out and quietly keeping a distance, because that gives the impression that I'm not attracted to her. And if I try to avoid any asexuality/demisexuality-related labels, what else is there to speak of? You can always say something that implies "I'm not that kind of guy", but the way gender politics works these days, it's as good as outright slut-shaming her for wanting to put out too soon. Not to mention again - not being interested - because all guys are supposed to be up for sex on the first date, right?

So yes, what it comes down to is that it's a very real "thing". No matter if you want to call it an "orientation", "inclination", or "thingamajig". It's something that makes you an outlier. That breaks usual patterns of modern human dating rituals. Possibly even "natural" innate human sexual patterns. So it deserves to be acknowledged upfront to make communication easier and avoid horrible misunderstandings.

Is there another way? A better way than to explain it as a certain strain of asexuality as described here? I don't know. But for now this seems to be the best I've got. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this is that we are all the sum total of our life experiences. I've had plenty of sexual and other kinds of trauma from childhood that have most likely shaped how I feel about sex - how I don't like to be violated or dominated or controlled or objectified in any way. I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if it's an "orientation" or if it's the result of the abuse - the end result is still the same: sex does not float my boat, and I think the only thing I'm missing out on by not having it is getting sticky down there and having my hair mussed up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If people wish to identify the label as an orientation, that is fine you don't have to agree with it but to not acknowledge the idea's existence is just another form of narrow minded traditionalism. I think many here may disagree where to categorize this particular label but most I think would say it exists.

I've been thinking of dropping all labels and just being "me". But really, I just don't know how to do it without sounding like a total douche...

I'm thinking of a scenario such as meeting someone who's interested in me - and getting sexual on a fairly normal modern dating time frame. It's pretty much impossible not to lose them by simply holding out and quietly keeping a distance, because that gives the impression that I'm not attracted to her. And if I try to avoid any asexuality/demisexuality-related labels, what else is there to speak of? You can always say something that implies "I'm not that kind of guy", but the way gender politics works these days, it's as good as outright slut-shaming her for wanting to put out too soon. Not to mention again - not being interested - because all guys are supposed to be up for sex on the first date, right?

So yes, what it comes down to is that it's a very real "thing". No matter if you want to call it an "orientation", "inclination", or "thingamajig". It's something that makes you an outlier. That breaks usual patterns of modern human dating rituals. Possibly even "natural" innate human sexual patterns. So it deserves to be acknowledged upfront to make communication easier and avoid horrible misunderstandings.

Is there another way? A better way than to explain it as a certain strain of asexuality as described here? I don't know. But for now this seems to be the best I've got. :lol:

I applaud your idea of ditching labels and just being yourself. This other stuff about "modern dating rituals" is very stereotypical Guz. Yes you will find people on the "dating scene" (that is, people who hang out on dating sites because they don't know where else to meet people and they're desperate) who all believe there is such a thing as a way things are done. You know, the so-called "third date rule" nonsense, which in my experience is total rubbish. I even embarrassed a guy by bringing it up and telling him I wouldn't be ready to do anything on the third date. That stuff is for social awkwards who don't just go with the flow of how they actually feel about the person they've met. And admittedly its very difficult to go with the flow of your feelings when you're anxious about not losing an opportunity.

When you have a good rapport with someone, you don't need to feel locked into a scenario. You can tell them what's going on in your mind. And you know, if they really don't like it, and they decide they don't want to hang out with you any more, then you know you were not long term compatible. If there is anything there between you, they will give you their time and trust. I firmly believe that. And the best way to find those people is to be yourself---and don't apologize for it! You don't need to explain yourself to anyone until they ask. And they will ask, when they see how happy and confident you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

When you have a good rapport with someone, you don't need to feel locked into a scenario. You can tell them what's going on in your mind. And you know, if they really don't like it, and they decide they don't want to hang out with you any more, then you know you were not long term compatible. If there is anything there between you, they will give you their time and trust. I firmly believe that.

This makes a lot of sense. Though I have been burned by it in the past (before I even identified my "tendencies" as any form of explicit asexuality). Mostly miscommunication along the lines of them not really believing that it's possible for a guy to be "romantically" interested in someone but not want sex right from the start - let alone for months and months. Their only conclusion was that I'm not "really interested" then.

The other annoying thing about this is that the stereotypical reason someone isn't into sex very quickly when "just dating" these days is some kind of religious or traditional values holding them back, which isn't me either. But this can do an extraordinary job of masking it.

I guess it's just hard for people to grasp the why. This is where I find it hard to not fall back on using labels. Because there is no "why", it just is. So far the only people I've spoken to who seem to internally grok this have been AVENites who identify as somewhere on the asexual spectrum.

Still, you make a lot of sense. :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you have a good rapport with someone, you don't need to feel locked into a scenario. You can tell them what's going on in your mind. And you know, if they really don't like it, and they decide they don't want to hang out with you any more, then you know you were not long term compatible. If there is anything there between you, they will give you their time and trust. I firmly believe that.

This makes a lot of sense. Though I have been burned by it in the past (before I even identified my "tendencies" as any form of explicit asexuality). Mostly miscommunication along the lines of them not really believing that it's possible for a guy to be "romantically" interested in someone but not want sex right from the start - let alone for months and months. Their only conclusion was that I'm not "really interested" then.

The other annoying thing about this is that the stereotypical reason someone isn't into sex very quickly when "just dating" these days is some kind of religious or traditional values holding them back, which isn't me either. But this can do an extraordinary job of masking it.

I guess it's just hard for people to grasp the why. This is where I find it hard to not fall back on using labels. Because there is no "why", it just is. So far the only people I've spoken to who seem to internally grok this have been AVENites who identify as somewhere on the asexual spectrum.

Still, you make a lot of sense. :cake:

Yeah I have to agree it must be difficult. And of course you want people to believe what you say, and using a label can make it sound more plausible. Even if people don't know what it means, the fact that there's a word for it suggests that you are not just making this up--other people have felt the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

demisexual is more helpful than the above example as it has already been defined

it helps people understand you a bit

^This. We have to be very aware that there isn't a 1:1 ratio between words and concepts in the world, so no matter how hard we try, we're not going to come up with the single perfect word to describe every orientation or sexuality. As far as labeling ourselves goes, we're mostly just trying to find a way to quickly and handily identify ourselves to others so that they can have some idea of the general gist of the vast complexities that exist within our being, or to easily find others like ourselves whose vast complexities generally align with our own. Finding labels, at least in this context, is about finding psychological and social peace, not about being excruciatingly scientifically categorical.

Also, it might be handy to point out that there is a distinction between "orientation" and "sexuality", yes, but that a word like "demisexual" or "asexual" can be used to describe either. "Orientation" is the direction your arrow is pointed, to speak. For example, you might say, "I am attracted only to female-identifying intersexed people, but I don't ever want to have sex with anyone," and you'd be...some specific orientation that I don't have a name for with regard to orientation, and asexual with regard to sexuality. "Sexuality", on the other hand, might be considered your drive to have sex, so you might say, for example, "I'm not attracted to anyone in particular, but I really want to have sex, and I get turned on by certain behaviors, but only after I've become close with someone." In which case you'd be either asexual (or maybe pansexual) with regard to your orientation, but demisexual in your sexuality. Make sense?

And then it's up to you to decide which label most quickly and handily describes the most prominent aspects of yourself. Like, that second person would probably rather choose to describe themself as "asexual" or "demisexual" than "pansexual" because their lack of sex drive and inspecific orientation would present themselves most obviously on the outside, where "pansexuality" might imply to somebody else "I have such a high sex drive, I don't discriminate between or among genders; I'll just take anything as it comes." Which isn't an accurate description of pansexuality, anyway, but that's not the point.

That's not to say that "orientation" and "sexuality" are only and always used with these definitions, just that in this context, that's how I'm using them. This is sort of like the "qualitative vs. quantitative" argument.

Oh! And also, I will say this: I accept the definition of "asexuality" as "lack of sexual attraction", that is, as a descriptor of an orientation. So I used to be annoyed with people who say, "I am sexually attracted to people, I just don't want to have sex with them," because that doesn't fit my definition of asexuality! What they're talking about, to me, is just low sex drive. But I came to realize that "low sex drive" or "absent sex drive" could totally justifiably be described as "asexual", so I'm not annoyed anymore. XD

Now, I just get frustrated a bit when asexuality education doesn't clarify the distinction between attraction and sex drive, or orientation and sexuality, or feeling and behavior, or whatever you want to call it. (For example, the description "celibacy is a choice, asexuality is innate" gets thrown around a lot, but that phrase doesn't really make sense, because celibacy is a behavior whereas asexuality is an orientation, in that context, so they're not actually related at all. You can be innately asexual and not be celibate. So you see, the education is just muddy and confusing... Which is why conversation like "Is demisexuality real?" can crop up so often.)

We need to just calm down and stop being so rigid with our language definitions. 8|

I hope that all made sense. D:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nathan Johnson

I have to admit, I don't see it as an orientation for the reason mentioned. You can be hypersexual, and that isn't an orientation, its just how sexually "turned on" you are. I will go further and say I don't even think asexuality is an orientation, but rather, an expression of how sexual you are. You can attracted to the opposite gender for a life partner but never be turned on sexually for them...in my opinion that makes you hetero in orientation, and asexual in your level of sexuality. Demisexuality would be the next level, moderately sexual the next, and then hypersexual. And I know other people may argue vehemently against what I just said, but that's fine. Its up to everyone to reach their own conclusions.

That's actually an interesting idea, distinguishing between orientation and degree or sexuality, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. Or I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, probably that one though. I'll try to describe how I see it, and through my eyes everything is a graph. So imagine a 2-dimensional graph with one axis being the percentage of same sex persons that someone is attracted to, and the other axis being the percentage of opposite sex persons attracted to. Each axis ranges from 0 to 1 and every person lies somewhere on that graph. I've always imagined asexuals at (0,0). The idea of the degree of sexuality would add a new dimension ranging from 0, where one is never "turned on", to 1, where one is always "turned on". You suggest that an asexual is not at (0,0,x), where x is any number 0-1, but is in actuality (y,z,0), where y and z are any value 0-1. While I think there is value in looking at how the degree of sex desired plays a role in asexual lives, I do not think it's valid or constructive to simply redefine a word that can realistically be self-applied. There certainly are asexuals at the (0,0,0) point, but just because someone gets a little randy (0,0,0.1) does not change how they feel about the sexual attractiveness of others. By engaging in sexual conduct does not change an asexual to heterosexual (as an example). If it did, we run into the problem of sexual conduct dictating sexual orientation. A man who has sex with men need not be homosexual. And a women who does not have sex need not be asexual.</braindump>

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

The problem with demisexuality, in terms of describing it as a separate axis of "intensity" like asexuality, is that attraction to the same person is very much a sliding scale depending on how well you know them. Rather than simply being a toned down interest in sex, like simple greyness or nonrepulsed asexuality.

From what I can tell, most sexual people have a strong sense of overt sexual attraction to certain others, based on physical features and impressions. eg. A typical sexual guy would find a hot woman of his physical "type" hot. Period. No matter how much of a bitch she is, and whether he knows her well or not, he'll still find her hot to look at and fantasize about having sex with. The actual follow-through to this perception is beside the point. The point is that it's there, and on a basic level is a relatively fixed thing.

Demisexuality turns this completely on its head. People start out as blank slates, but getting to know them can induce sexual desire. But when 99% of the world assumes that sexual attraction and desire should work like the above (at least in principle, even if not directly acted upon) - they get horribly confused why you're giving off totally sexually uninterested signals in early stages of dating. This is the part that's a disconnect with sexuals, even when general rapport is good in other ways. That's the part that's possibly deserving of being visible and used as a label - real "orientation" or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carpet Monster

Staggered to see some of the posts on this subject, I hadn't realised there was so much disdain towards demisexuals. First of all its quite laughable that anyone would use demisexuality in an attempt to get attention. I'm not even sure how people would use it to show off? (Should I start putting it on my business card?) I have never really openly discussed my sexuality with anyone and I would be aghast to think that anyone else would discuss my sexuality, let alone think I am using it to my advantage and I'm sure other demisexuals feel the same.

I also hope that you don't think we fall in love on a whim with the first person who flutters their eyelashes at us. In my experience I have only felt attraction to one person in my life, which was after knowing her for three years and after we had formed a special bond. I've never had the desire to be with anyone else but I'm uncertain of how I may feel towards another person in future. My affection is certainly not something I throw around lightly and it would be wrong to label demisexuals as just simply, disenfranchised sexuals.

All I can really say is this website was a lifeline to me, before I came across AVEN I was feeling really confused and alienated from society and to have those questions and concerns, answered, was infinitely helpful. I'm sure it has had the same impact on other people's lives. To cast us off into the wilderness would be vastly unfair :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can tell, most sexual people have a strong sense of overt sexual attraction to certain others, based on physical features and impressions. eg. A typical sexual guy would find a hot woman of his physical "type" hot. Period. No matter how much of a bitch she is, and whether he knows her well or not, he'll still find her hot to look at and fantasize about having sex with. The actual follow-through to this perception is beside the point. The point is that it's there, and on a basic level is a relatively fixed thing.

This is where there is a huge problem. It's not like this at all. That's Hollywood sexuality, and it's not real. I think to say it's normal for sexuals to fantasize about having sex with good looking people we see is...a fantasy.

Unless...there really is a huge difference between the way males experience sexual attraction and the way females do (I have read there is a pretty big difference actually). Most of the females I know do not undress people or imagine having sex with them. The bar/club scene might be representative of Hollywood sexuality I guess, from what I remember.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train
Unless...there really is a huge difference between the way males experience sexual attraction and the way females do (I have read there is a pretty big difference actually). Most of the females I know do not undress people or imagine having sex with them. The bar/club scene might be representative of Hollywood sexuality I guess, from what I remember.

I think this is quite possible...

I honestly used to think all the high sexualisation (in the "male gaze" sense) you see in the media and out in the world was hype and satire. For example: I don't get what it is about certain (highly revealing and "risque") ways of dressing that's especially "sexy", but it seems that it does indeed turn heads. How much there is an explicit immediate sense of actual sexual fantasy behind that immediate impression doesn't even matter really, the point is whether it exists or not. I think it does - because it's hard to imagine that it's all just a massive marketing ploy which works on everyone else but not me. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting one for me, because until a couple years ago I identified as heteromantic but very much asexual. But now I'm almost a year married, and I while I do have sex with my husband, I still identify as asexual far more than I identify as hetersexual. Because while yes I do now feel physical attraction to my husband (after 5 years of amazing love and understanding on his part), I still don't feel the least bit of interest in anyone else. So that's 1 person to whom I do feel sexual attraction and about 7 billion people to whom I don't. In my books that makes me way closer to asexual than to anything else. :P

But the interesting thing for me is that nowadays I really don't care as much about labelling myself. When I was a new-to-dating twenty-year-old and had just discovered that asexuality was a thing, discovering this new label for myself was a pretty huge deal to me. But now I'm happily married in a relationship that rocks at communication and mutual understanding, and we choose to have sex. Does that mean I'm demisexual? Honestly, I don't much care anymore.

That said, I would care if someone now tried to tell me that I was never really asexual, or tried to provide me with a new label of their choosing. Because there was a time in my life when identifying as asexual was hugely important to me. Which is why that Tumblr post saying "you don't need a special word for it" really bothers me. Everyone needs words by which they can choose to express their identity. It's part of figuring out who we are.

Besides, arguing that to feel sexual attraction to even just one person immediately negates your asexual identity follows the same line of thinking as all that "you just haven't met the right person yet" junk, which is a notion that I still wholeheartedly reject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I don't really see it as being a label. I see it as a way to explain, well to be blunt "why I don't want to have sex with you" without making the person think that I am completely rejecting them. This way of explaining also lets the men I date know that putting a deadline on when I'm going to "put out" for them isn't going to work - which I can't believe that men my age actually do. I consider myself asexual - but, I might be Demi. But, I don't know because I haven't dated anyone longer than a month or two in the last 15 years.

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...