# Demisexuality does not make you morally superior....



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

if you identify as demisexual, by all means, do yo thang, but no, it does not make you morally superior to me, and I get really tired of people either overtly or (usually) passive-aggressively implying that. being attracted to boobs, dicks, faces, bodies, etc does not make you shallow, immoral or "objectifying", and I'm getting tired of the people who sanctimoniously jump on it as a chance to look like they're somehow more "enlightened", "deep", "interested in a more "mature" relationship"......if this is you, get over yourself.


----------



## Korra (Feb 28, 2015)

I'm slightly surprised you went to demisexuality first and not asexuality. 

I accept I'm wired differently, and also accept others are wired differently and neither should patronize each other for it.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

This is all bs. Attraction itself is emotional. If you aren't "emotionally attracted" you simply aren't attracted.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

I'm demisexual I'm morally superior fight me.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

I'm not as accepting as Korra. And I feel like ruffling some furs.

Wouldn't you say that sexualizing a person is (to some degree) inevitably objectifying them, or reducing them to a function rather than a complete and complex human? There is a reason most women (probably some men) typically don't want to hear that someone's interested in them only for the sex. There's quite a huge difference in complexity and higher-level cognition/empathy involved in "I wanna fuck the shit out of them" and "I want to get to know them as a person". They overlap, but I think anyone who says that one isn't a more... "root" cause, is being delusional. That mentality, hardwired as it is into most humans, inevitably bleeds over into social interactions. Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible to isolate. Those with muted sexual attraction don't do this, since they never get to the stage of essentially sizing up another person into physical parts.

Also, one has a sex drive that is significantly more likely to be the cause of non-consensual crime/occurrences, and one does not have that issue. An asexual or demisexual likely won't manipulate someone into having sex with them or support disgusting, destructive systems such as prostitution. 

"Morally superior" seems a vapid statement, but more naturally inclined towards ethical behavior or at least less likely to cause sex-related issues (which as I've said, affect society as a whole), I don't see why that would be inaccurate.

Commence the crap blizzard.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Kazoo The Kid said:


> I'm demisexual I'm morally superior fight me.


nah, I'd be unclean for days even after I won


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Metasentient said:


> I'm not as accepting as Korra. And I feel like ruffling some furs.
> Wouldn't you say that sexualizing a person is (to some degree) inevitably objectifying them, or reducing them to a function rather than a complete and complex human? There is a reason most women (probably some men) typically don't want to hear that someone's interested in them only for the sex. There's quite a huge difference in complexity and higher-level cognition/empathy involved in "I wanna fuck the shit out of them" and "I want to get to know them as a person". They overlap, but I think anyone who says that one isn't a more... "root" cause, is being delusional. That mentality, hardwired as it is into most humans, inevitably bleeds over into social interactions. Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible to isolate. Those with muted sexual attraction don't do this, since they never get to the stage of essentially sizing up another person into physical parts.
> Also, one has a sex drive that is significantly more likely to be the cause of non-consensual crime/occurrences, and one does not have that issue. An asexual or demisexual likely won't manipulate someone into having sex with them or support disgusting, destructive systems such as prostitution.
> "Morally superior" seems a vapid statement, but more naturally inclined towards ethical behavior or at least less likely to cause sex-related issues (which as I've said, affect society as a whole), I don't see why that would be inaccurate.
> Commence the crap blizzard.


single cause fallacy doesn't impress me. sexual attract and romantic intimacy are not either or. in fact, they enhance each other.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> single cause fallacy doesn't impress me


deeeeeeeep


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Metasentient said:


> deeeeeeeep


throat this dick


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

*cough* T


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> throat this dick


Sure, but I hope it's written its last will.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Metasentient said:


> Sure, but I hope it's written its last will.


nah, bite one off and two more grow back and choke yo ass.
#HydraPenis


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

I chuckled, that was good.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> single cause fallacy doesn't impress me. sexual attract and romantic intimacy are not either or. in fact, they enhance each other.


Oh, didn't see the edit. 

Just because two things overlap doesn't mean they can't be separated from each other. Would you still be with someone, not cheating on them (because romance), you could never have sex with?


----------



## Korra (Feb 28, 2015)

Metasentient said:


> I'm not as accepting as Korra. And I feel like ruffling some furs.
> 
> Wouldn't you say that sexualizing a person is (to some degree) inevitably objectifying them, or reducing them to a function rather than a complete and complex human? There is a reason most women (probably some men) typically don't want to hear that someone's interested in them only for the sex. There's quite a huge difference in complexity and higher-level cognition/empathy involved in "I wanna fuck the shit out of them" and "I want to get to know them as a person". They overlap, but I think anyone who says that one isn't a more... "root" cause, is being delusional. That mentality, hardwired as it is into most humans, inevitably bleeds over into social interactions. Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible to isolate. Those with muted sexual attraction don't do this, since they never get to the stage of essentially sizing up another person into physical parts.
> 
> ...


There's definitely cases where it goes too far, but I think we're mostly referring to 'sane normal people' you encounter on a daily basis that knows how to not be a raging sexual deviant. The tiny conflict on the tiny side of the web where asexuals will believe he or she is a superior human simply because they experience attraction differently. It's almost like shaming someone for their natural bodily functions. Men that proclaim he is a superior gender due to not experiencing periods as well as shames women for this is totally uncool. 
To me, as I see it, it's a 'game' that you're either in or not. Not talking about "games" where we're sporting number of partners slept with, but along the lines a game between allosexuals 'get' between each other. Some want to be appreciated for their looks in a certain way with their features, as well as the other individual. If it's mutual, I don't think it's a big deal. For some of us asexuals to point and look down upon this, I don't see what's productive about it. This topic was definitely topical within the AVEN forums when I was active there, and I'm glad the staff took steps not to let that mindset run rampant. 

Asexuals, while yes, less likely to manipulate someone into sex, is still easily capable of any other human deviancy such as psychological abuse, violence, etc. 

Pls treat me gently meta :<


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Metasentient said:


> Oh, didn't see the edit.
> 
> Just because two things overlap doesn't mean they can't be separated from each other. Would you still be with someone, not cheating on them (because romance), you could never have sex with?


guilty until proven innocent. your point is irrelevant


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Korra said:


> There's definitely cases where it goes too far, but I think we're mostly referring to 'sane normal people' you encounter on a daily basis that knows how to not be a raging sexual deviant. The tiny conflict on the tiny side of the web where asexuals will believe he or she is a superior human simply because they experience attraction differently. It's almost like shaming someone for their natural bodily functions. Men that proclaim he is a superior gender due to not experiencing periods as well as shames women for this is totally uncool.
> To me, as I see it, it's a 'game' that you're either in or not. Not talking about "games" where we're sporting number of partners slept with, but along the lines a game between allosexuals 'get' between each other. Some what to be appreciated for their looks in a certain way with their features, as well as the other individual. If it's mutual, I don't think it's a big deal. For some of us asexuals to point and look down upon this, I don't see what's productive about it. This topic was definitely topical within the AVEN forums when I was active there, and I'm glad the staff took steps not to let that mindset run rampant.
> 
> Asexuals, while yes, less likely to manipulate someone into sex, is still easily capable of any other human deviancy such as psychological abuse, violence, etc.
> ...


I agree, and I decided to leave out sexual promiscuity (as opposed to "healthy" relationships) altogether, since I'm not sure how that would be defined these days.

Most of what I described was just intended to show that the majority of those issues would be attributed to sexuals as a group. #notallsexuals, I know. I think sexual crime is sexually-motivated rather than just an unfortunate outcome of bad psychology, though that obviously plays a part. 

The only thing I disagree with is the "raging deviant" comparison. A significant proportion of sexually "normal" people make manipulative, dishonest, and otherwise destructive actions in their attempts to make/keep a sexual partner. Dishonesty plays into it significantly for me, as I think many people are not completely honest about how much they truly like their partner's other qualities to the exclusion of the sexual ones, and why should they be? That most likely wouldn't get them the results they want. With asexuality or any of those gray-areas, that aspect of human social interaction is conveniently reduced.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

I appreciate the last point, but otherwise I don't think that asexuals can really claim moral superiority for being part of a demographic that is statistically less likely to commit sex-related crimes anymore than weak and scrawny people can claim moral superiority for being part of a demographic that is statistically less likely to commit violent crimes.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> I appreciate the last point, but otherwise I don't think that asexuals can really claim moral superiority for being part of a demographic that is statistically less likely to commit sex-related crimes anymore than weak and scrawny people can claim moral superiority for being part of a demographic that is less likely to commit violent crimes.


What did I say about moral superiority in my first post?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Well.. I was addressing the thread, not just you.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Weak and scrawny people can't.

Gray-area sexuals don't want to, and have no need for it. Also, this thread is about demis.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Metasentient said:


> Weak and scrawny people can't.
> 
> Asexuals don't want to, and have no need for it. Also, this thread is about demis.


Same difference in this context. What do you mean, "want to?" Want to rape or manipulate? That's not true at all. I'm not asexual/demisexual and I've done neither or desired to.. I'm guessing that applies to most on this forum. Are driven people less ethical because of possible gains from stepping on others on the way to the top?


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

I don't think the weak and scrawny comparison to asexuals is accurate. It would be more accurate to compare the weak and scrawny person to someone who is ugly/unattractive and the asexual to a person who is more gentle natured or dislikes violence.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Prophet, I have to say, I did _not_ expect you to agree with some of what I said. xD Not that I thought of you as hypersexual or anything.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> I don't think the weak and scrawny comparison to asexuals is accurate. It would be more accurate to compare the weak and scrawny person to someone who is ugly/unattractive and the asexual to a person who is more gentle natured or dislikes violence.


I don't understand. I'm not trying to draw that sort of similarity, I'm saying that being in a position to do damage doesn't make one an amoral person.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Funny, you did draw that similarity. 

They're in that position in terms of capability, they just don't feel the need to do it and by nature, don't do it. I don't know what your broad definition of morality is, but not engaging in harmful behaviors does it for me. You think it's only moral if they're exercising some kind of herculean self-restraint?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Metasentient said:


> I'm not as accepting as Korra. And I feel like ruffling some furs.
> 
> Wouldn't you say that sexualizing a person is (to some degree) inevitably objectifying them, or reducing them to a function rather than a complete and complex human? There is a reason most women (probably some men) typically don't want to hear that someone's interested in them only for the sex. There's quite a huge difference in complexity and higher-level cognition/empathy involved in "I wanna fuck the shit out of them" and "I want to get to know them as a person". They overlap, but I think anyone who says that one isn't a more... "root" cause, is being delusional. That mentality, hardwired as it is into most humans, inevitably bleeds over into social interactions. Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible to isolate. Those with muted sexual attraction don't do this, since they never get to the stage of essentially sizing up another person into physical parts.
> 
> ...


But wouldn't you agree that people are inherently sex objects by nature and no one can change that?


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> But wouldn't you agree that people are inherently sex objects by nature and no one can change that?


Help, mah dick!


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Metasentient said:


> Help, mah dick!


I actually think you're kind of immoral because you aren't reproducing to make more children which is immoral in my religion


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Metasentient said:


> Funny, you did draw that similarity.
> 
> They're in that position in terms of capability, they just don't feel the need to do it and by nature, don't do it. I don't know what your broad definition of morality is, but not engaging in harmful behaviors does it for me. You think it's only moral if they're exercising some kind of herculean self-restraint?


You interpreted it that way, but whatever, it might have been a slightly off-mark analogy, so I'll use a better one, but first...

Simply having sexual attraction isn't wrong, and I'm sure you'd acknowledge that (if not, do you think having attraction to any other character trait is wrong? I'm guessing that makes you a hypocrite if your answer is yes). Now we know that people have all sorts of human drives, but how we go about satisfying them varies (ethical or unethical methods). So what about this: a person who's motivated to achieve academic success vs someone who is not. The motive alone doesn't make the person moral or amoral, but how he/she tries to obtain a good outcome might.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I actually think you're kind of immoral because you aren't reproducing to make more children which is immoral in my religion


This may assist you.










It's yummy!


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Don't be ashamed to be a slut if you like to get banged. These labels are all bullshit anyway, it was created by people who need to protect themselves from what they can't understand nor tolerate. If demis are feeling sexually superior it's because of the whole purity of their intent and also the fact that they re fucking insecure about living a sex life to begin with. Where sex = sex and nothing else.

In the end, nothing truly matter. There'll always be arrogance, there'll always be judgment, as long as you're staying in "that circle" and keep things private, you won't even have to think about it. 

Because right now Sword, you're kinda being the same thing that you're pointing out, in a way. It's not because you're free on that aspect that you're superior to them. And it's also not because you're free and doing your thing that you won't be judged either.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> You interpreted it that way, but whatever, it might have been a slightly off-mark analogy, so I'll use a better one, but first...
> 
> Simply having sexual attraction isn't wrong, and I'm sure you'd acknowledge that (if not, do you think having attraction to any other character trait is wrong? I'm guessing that makes you a hypocrite if your answer is yes). Now we know that people have all sorts of human drives, but how we go about satisfying them varies (ethical or unethical methods). So what about this: a person who's motivated to achieve academic success vs someone who is not. The motive alone doesn't make the person moral or amoral, but how he/she tries to obtain a good outcome might.


People do have all kinds of drives. Some are pedophiles, some are into autoerotic asphyxiation, some are regular sexuals, and some are just on the gray end. 

And all of my points still stand.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Sygma said:


> Don't be ashamed to be a slut if you like to get banged. These labels are all bullshit anyway, it was created by people who need to protect themselves from what they can't understand nor tolerate. If demis are feeling sexually superior it's because of the whole purity of their intent and also the fact that they re *fucking insecure about living a sex life to begin with. Where sex = sex and nothing else*.


Wut


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Metasentient said:


> Funny, you did draw that similarity.
> 
> They're in that position in terms of capability, they just don't feel the need to do it and by nature, don't do it. I don't know what your broad definition of morality is, but not engaging in harmful behaviors does it for me. You think it's only moral if they're exercising some kind of herculean self-restraint?


How unsosphicated may I recommend:


> Amongst our inclinations there is one which is directed towards other human beings. They themselves, and not their work and services, are its objects of enjoyment. It is true that man has no inclination to enjoy the flesh of another–except, perhaps, in the vengeance of war, and then it is hardly a desire–but nonetheless there does exist an inclination which we may call an appetite for enjoying another human being. We refer to sexual impulse. Man can, of course, use another human being as an instrument for his service; he can use his hands, his feet, and even all his powers; he can use him for his own purposes with the other’s consent. But there is no way in which a human being can be made an object of indulgence for another except through sexual impulse. This is in the nature of a sense, which we can call the sixth sense; it is an appetite for another human being.
> 
> We say that a man loves someone when he has an inclination towards another person. If by this love we mean true human love, then it admits of no distinction between types of persons, or between young and old. But a love that springs merely from sexual impulse cannot be love at all, but only appetite. Human love is good will, affection, promoting the happiness of others and finding joy in their happiness. But it is clear that, when a person loves another purely from sexual desire, none of these factors enter into the love. Far from there being any concern for the happiness of the loved one, the lover, in order to satisfy his desire and still his appetite, may even plunge the loved one into the depths of misery. Sexual love makes of the loved person an object of appetite; as soon as that appetite has been stifled, the person is cast aside as one casts away a lemon which has been sucked dry.
> 
> ...


Who do you think wrote this one?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Metasentient said:


> People do have all kinds of drives. Some are pedophiles, some are into autoerotic asphyxiation, some are regular sexuals, and some are just on the gray end.
> 
> And all of my points still stand.


Ok, and I don't condemn people for those drives alone. The culprit is lack of some inhibitory system.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Metasentient said:


> Wut


It's pretty explicit I think


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

If you think I'm going to read that, you really are on a morphine-DMT cocktail


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> You interpreted it that way, but whatever, it might have been a slightly off-mark analogy, so I'll use a better one, but first...
> 
> Simply having sexual attraction isn't wrong, and I'm sure you'd acknowledge that (if not, do you think having attraction to any other character trait is wrong? I'm guessing that makes you a hypocrite if your answer is yes). Now we know that people have all sorts of human drives, but how we go about satisfying them varies (ethical or unethical methods). So what about this: a person who's motivated to achieve academic success vs someone who is not. The motive alone doesn't make the person moral or amoral, but how he/she tries to obtain a good outcome might.



No, no. The motive is the only indictator. Two people can make the same decision and have two different outcomes, good and bad, and one of them would be good and one of them would be bad. They would have had no control over it. That's why we have free will and the motive is more important than the consequence. Sí.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Sygma said:


> It's pretty explicit I think


It's explicitly making some kind of bold claim, but that makes no sense. For starters, demisexuals do have/enjoy sex. And I've never met an asexual that hated being what they are since it saves a lot of time, effort, money, and wasted thought, but I've definitely seen the opposite.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Metasentient said:


> Why not, if they're less likely to do damage? There are many definitions of morality; some are decision-based, others are based on outcome. If people really cared, as a society, about intent alone, we'd never punish anyone for inadvertently killing/hurting anyone. Hell, we'd admit people to whatever schools and jobs they wanted based on their preferences and not any actual indicators of aptitude.
> 
> No. It means that a person... just doesn't feel the _desire_ to fuck another unless they have become well acquainted over some period of time, with a good emotional dynamic.


That isn't really their choice though, so they shouldn't be awarded any points for doing nothing.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Why are you trolling me? Huh?


;_; The one time I don't troll, I get this from you sir?


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

"I'm a polyamorous heteroflexible panromantic demisexual omnigender dragon-kin belonging to the fantasy kintype and I occasionally switch to vampirekin for my occasional quirk of liking to bite people's necks. Also, I have OCD, schizophrenia, PTSD, and ADHD (all self-diagnosed, of course, real psychologists are crazy and that's classist to expect me to be able to afford one). "


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> That isn't really their choice though, so they shouldn't be awarded any points for doing nothing.


Should a genius with a high IQ be awarded any recognition at all just for doing what they love/are good at, that they'd be miserable not doing?


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Playful Proxy said:


> "I'm a polyamorous heteroflexible panromantic demisexual omnigender dragon-kin belonging to the fantasy kintype and I occasionally switch to vampirekin for my occasional quirk of liking to bite people's necks. Also, I have OCD, schizophrenia, PTSD, and ADHD (all self-diagnosed, of course, real psychologists are crazy and that's ableism). "


I'm a wolfkin, dammit. :crying:


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Playful Proxy said:


> "I'm a polyamorous heteroflexible panromantic demisexual omnigender dragon-kin belonging to the fantasy kintype and I occasionally switch to vampirekin for my occasional quirk of liking to bite people's necks. Also, I have OCD, schizophrenia, PTSD, and ADHD (all self-diagnosed, of course, real psychologists are crazy and that's classist to expect me to be able to afford one). "


Thank you


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

We do care about outcomes.. it's the only thing we actually legislate. If you want to make statements about the general probabilities of outcomes based on demographic variables, that's valid, but I don't think it's valid (nor does the legal system) to make moral judgments about someone based on those demographic variables alone. There are pedophiles who don't harm children, there are highly emotional people who don't hurt people when they become upset, and so on. The desire alone isn't sufficient to produce a negative outcome, so it's not fair to make those sorts of moral judgments about people simply for having them when they may recognize that they can't be acted on.


----------



## Amelia (Aug 23, 2015)

Demisexuality shouldn't even be a thing, in my opinion. What a waste of a term.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Demisexuality shouldn't even be a thing, in my opinion. What a waste of a term.


But labels ! CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO DIFFERENTIATE EVERYTHING IN VERY DISTINCT CIRCLES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN HARMONY ?

CAN'T YOU ?

CAN'T YOU REALLY ?!1!!1!


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Metasentient said:


> Should a genius with a high IQ be awarded any recognition at all just for doing what they love/are good at, that they'd be miserable not doing?


They shouldn't be awarded points for doing nothing. Heck, they shouldn't being awarding themselves points that's called being a bad person. You need buy a Critique of X book and read it some day.


----------



## Amelia (Aug 23, 2015)

Sygma said:


> But labels ! CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO DIFFERENCIATE EVERYTHING IN VERY DISTINCT CIRCLES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN HARMONY ?
> 
> CAN'T YOU ?
> 
> CAN'T YOU REALLY ?!1!!1!


I love your sarcasm. :laughing:


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Metasentient said:


> ;_; The one time I don't troll, I get this from you sir?


What! What? You're telling me that you're really an imperialist right now? *drinks* I'm ready to fight. You're pro-death penalty and an imperialist. Are you from Texas?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Demisexuality shouldn't even be a thing, in my opinion. What a waste of a term.


Why not? We've already muddled up the description of demisexuality with classic "prudish person" making no distinction between them.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Sygma said:


> But labels ! CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO DIFFERENTIATE EVERYTHING IN VERY DISTINCT CIRCLES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN HARMONY ?
> 
> CAN'T YOU ?
> 
> CAN'T YOU REALLY ?!1!!1!


There are like 7 types of asexuality alone can you imagine how many sexualities there are? Btw how many people use this IRL?
"That would $23.50" oh yeah I'm a demisexual my friend what you are? "I'm a um gray asexual with a little bit of Demi in there."


----------



## VacantPsalm (Dec 22, 2014)

Isn't there an instant win button for the non-demisextuals?

"That is not how lust / sexual objectification / whatever works. You will never understand how those work because you are incapable of experiencing any of them. Therefor your arguments are invalid."


Edit: Wait, wasn't this thread at like 2 pages or something when I started typing? How did I get to 8?


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> What! What? You're telling me that you're really an imperialist right now? *drinks* I'm ready to fight. You're pro-death penalty and an imperialist. Are you from Texas?


Thee must hasten thy sagely posterior to bed, post-haste. It is late for children to be roaming these dark webs.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Metasentient said:


> Thee must hasten thy sagely posterior to bed, post-haste. It is late for children to be roaming these dark webs.


This is an adult club and I'm here to be an adult. Act maturely and such.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

This thread makes one point and one point only. The point? 

Swordsman clearly feels morally inferior to demisexuals :witch:


But seriously, this isn't the first time you've brought this up as an issue which is interesting considering that I haven't exactly seen anyone treat you or anyone else that way on the forum. Let me get out my pen and we can start this therapy session. So, Swordsman, how long have you been made to feel inferior by those who identify as demisexual? Why do you believe this is?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Ace Face said:


> This thread makes one point and one point only. The point?
> 
> Swordsman clearly feels morally inferior to demisexuals :witch:
> 
> ...


He's confusing demisexuals with priests. That's the problem.


----------



## Amelia (Aug 23, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Why not? We've already muddled up the description of demisexuality with classic "prudish person" making no distinction between them.




Demisexual: lack of sexual attraction until you become emotionally intimate with the person. 

We all are "demisexual" to some degree. It doesn't truly define physical sexuality like homosexual or heterosexual.
It seems like extra elaboration where no extra complications are needed.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> He's confusing demisexuals with priests. That's the problem.


My thoughts exactly, but we must do a thorough examination JUST to make sure. Also, I don't think he's had his heartworm pill this month, and I've already set his grooming appointment for next Tuesday! I also told the lady to put a cute, pink bandanna on him this time around if they have them in that color. I don't want the red one with cowboy hats on it again...


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Demisexual: lack of sexual attraction until you become emotionally intimate with the person.
> 
> We all are "demisexual" to some degree. It doesn't truly define physical sexuality like homosexual or heterosexual.
> It seems like extra elaboration where no extra complications are needed.


That ain't the point. Who are you?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Ace Face said:


> My thoughts exactly, but we must do a thorough examination JUST to make sure. Also, I don't think he's had his heartworm pill this month, and I've already set his grooming appointment for next Tuesday! I also told the lady to put a cute, pink bandanna on him this time around if they have them in that color. I don't want the red one with cowboy hats on it again...


That's the same thing, all attraction is emotional. You don't feel attracted without feeling attracted. You don't mentally feel attracted. That's a fact. Get over it already.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I used to think I was demisexual but that's because I still hadn't seen the right girl in the nude


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

If you people want to debate who is morally superior, you must introduce and determine concept of universal morality and only member doing this openly was @Grandmaster Yoda introducing Immanuel Kant.

This may be or may not be accepted as basis for universal morality. But no viable alternative was presented so far.
@flummoxed was right to mention that it's not sexual desire, but action moral or immoral.

Hence even if we accept the Kantian statement, asexual/demi-sexual person is not inherently morally superior or inferior to sexual person, he/she just lacks the passions he/she is expected to regulate just as any other passions. Those without the passions are just stripped of the moral choice.

If we go with traditional 7 deadly sins, the passions are:
3.1 Greed
3.2 Envy
3.3 Gluttony
3.4 Sloth
3.5 Wrath
3.6 Lust
3.7 Pride

We all know most of those passions if well regulated are not sins, but can be channeled to positive and productive deeds. For example Greed may lead one to be hardworking entrepreneur if well regulated. Regulated envy would make us be rather inspired by object of our envy to better ourselves than wanting to bring him/her down. etc.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Yes, they are not morally superior and they aren't inferior either. I'm asexual and I think we should not care how one experiences sexual attraction or not at all. Acceptance should work in every way. If asexuals and demisexuals want to be accepted, they have to accept sex positivity. Doesn't mean aces and demis should force themselves to be sex positive like they can have negative views on sex itself but do not impose these views or judge others who are sex positive and they shouldn't look down on sexual people and they should be accepting of sex positivity.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Why demisexuals over sapiosexuals? That fad is less understandable to me, always was. I like a good intellect but who doesn't in a partner? Maybe I'm sounding unenlightened and discriminatory, then very well, enlighten me and I'll listen. However, my impression of people when the word got popular was that it became a fad to disidentify with the sexual aspects of the body by rather focusing on personality qualities eg intelligence. It's no less objectifying, though, as objectification is simply the relationship of x observing y. What is observed about y is irrelevant.


----------



## Macona (Jul 28, 2011)

I wouldn't be sure how to handle a relationship with a demisexual, as all my previous have been quite promiscuous/nymphos.

I kinda like it that way though...

EDIT: How long into 'Netflix & chill' does it take for that emotion connection to happen???


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Why demisexuals over sapiosexuals? That fad is less understandable to me, always was. I like a good intellect but who doesn't in a partner? Maybe I'm sounding unenlightened and discriminatory, then very well, enlighten me and I'll listen. However, my impression of people when the word got popular was that it became a fad to disidentify with the sexual aspects of the body by rather focusing on personality qualities eg intelligence. It's no less objectifying, though, as objectification is simply the relationship of x observing y. What is observed about y is irrelevant.



If sapiosexuals do exist, I've never met one lol


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Macona said:


> I wouldn't be sure how to handle a relationship with a demisexual, as all my previous have been quite promiscuous/nymphos.
> 
> I kinda like it that way though...
> 
> EDIT: How long into 'Netflix & chill' does it take for that emotion connection to happen???


How about 2 years? :laughing:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> If sapiosexuals do exist, I've never met one lol


Never come across someone who strongly identifies as one as their primary sexual orientation, except on that forum for asexuals and grey variants.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Meh... I've always been strongly attracted to people with high intelligence, practically regardless of everything else. It took me some trial and error to realize that there are equally important qualities.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't _strongly_ identify as a sapio, but I do find intelligence sexy. Sue me! ;-)
(Otoh, just as with other many concepts, such as morality, people have very different definitions of what "intelligent" is.)

I'm also demi, which does not mean that I don't have sex as someone said, but in order for me to be sexually attracted to someone I need to feel an emotional connection based on intellectual interaction. That doesn't mean that I am more or less moral than anyone, it just means that I am wired that way. I have a few thoughts as to why, but nvm. 
When it comes to level of 'promiscuity', demi doesn't necessarily mean fewer sexual partners, just more time for a different type of foreplay.

Since I used to be a highly sexual person, being less of a demi might have been more practical for me. 
Emotional connections are not always a good thing, because not all emotional connections are constructive. Many are downright damaging.

Sure, labels might be silly in may ways, but it's easier to just use an established term than to write an essay explaining how you function every time the subject comes up. Isn't that what personality typing is all about?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Why demisexuals over sapiosexuals? That fad is less understandable to me, always was. I like a good intellect but who doesn't in a partner? Maybe I'm sounding unenlightened and discriminatory, then very well, enlighten me and I'll listen. However, my impression of people when the word got popular was that it became a fad to disidentify with the sexual aspects of the body by rather focusing on personality qualities eg intelligence. It's no less objectifying, though, as objectification is simply the relationship of x observing y. What is observed about y is irrelevant.


Sapiosexuals have an advantage, their form of climbing the tree and watching a person undress is just talking to a person.
When people say x-sexual I assume they mean they feel an enticing urge when exposed to something. People like intelligence I'm sure but I don't see them as having an urge when they watch a lecture, so they wouldn't be sapiosexual in my eyes.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Stop mocking the poor geriatric Alzhie wolfess


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

At the point in time I considered myself demi, it meant "not feeling sexual attraction without an emotional connection" but since then it seems to have become more bloated with ambiguity and connotations that I wouldn't identify with. For instance I never thought of it as a moral advantage, or that it implies a lack of non-sexual attraction based on visual characteristics, and I've been called shallow even by some of these people for mentioning that I find people attractive but not in a sexual way, prior to having an emotional connection to them, and I sense a hint of arrogance in it.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Euclid said:


> At the point in time I considered myself demi, it meant "not feeling sexual attraction without an emotional connection" but since then it seems to have become more bloated with ambiguity and connotations that I wouldn't identify with. For instance I never thought of it as a moral advantage, or that it implies a lack of non-sexual attraction based on visual characteristics, and I've been called shallow even by some of these people for mentioning that I find people attractive but not in a sexual way, prior to having an emotional connection to them, and I sense a hint of arrogance in it.


I have never before seen someone both identifying as demi-sexual and him/herself proclaiming to be morally superior. However because of traditionally accepted moral codes being comparatively puritan (as to compare just before and after sexual revolution), some people conflate one's preference with moralism and puritanism as "slut shaming" is more intelligible (and familiar) than demi-sexuality to them. So it's rather them unconsciously feeling traditionally morally inferior themselves which they resent.


----------



## untested methods (May 8, 2015)

Sex and sexuality has never been the problem to me, it's the way people treat each other over it. It's possible to see someone in a sexual light and desire them without objectifying them. A lot of people only want each other for "one thing", we just prefer the ones who agree with us on what we should be giving each other. I'm not my body or my sexuality, but I'm also not my sympathy or my humor.

Most people have a sexual side. Acknowledging something so human shouldn't be_ de_humanizing.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Everything I do different from others makes me morally superior because if it didn't, it'd by default make my morally inferior - if that is one's outlook anyway :mellow:

Mental self-preservation!

Woohoo!


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

I can make this Freudian and really weird if you want 

I've noticed - and I'm not saying that this is always the case - that a lot of demis I know have a strained relationship with one or both parents, and that they often have similar relationships with siblings (if they aren't only children) and other family members as well. (In some cases this is due to a traumatic past of sexual abuse, in which case a sensitivity or numbing to more carnal desires for their sake makes sense from a standpoint of cause and effect, and I don't judge them for that...not that I would or do otherwise either).

I've also noticed that a lot of men with reputations for womanizing are on the opposite end of the spectrum as mama's boys. I've wondered if this is where the Madonna-whore complex comes in, needing to keep those bonds strictly separate, so that sentimentality and physical arousal don't blur into an amorphous undifferentiated creature in their bed that makes them fall to the ground and claw out their eyes ala Oedipus (and I don't judge Them for wanting to avoid that xD). 

And this is where my problem with demisexuality being pushed on me comes from...



Ace Face said:


> But seriously, this isn't the first time you've brought this up as an issue which is interesting considering that I haven't exactly seen anyone treat you or anyone else that way on the forum.


Then honestly, you're not paying attention (though I can't remember you being a part of any of the threads I'm thinking of in fairness). I'm not even sure how much of this I'm allowed to talk about because mods have been involved, but I can think of many instances of this throughout the years, without going into detail. Downright attacks. I'm perpetuating rape culture, I'm mentally ill and unstable for needing seduction at first over open honesty - and for needing that to be exciting, sexual and intriguing (I.e. "sociopathic" apparently) rather than aimed at emotions and the softer feels (which, I'm sorry, to me, and my *personal *lady bits, can be Creepier! ...kinda unrelated but funny):


* *












Just the other day I was straight up targeted by someone, on an unrelated forum, who I wasn't even talking to, and told that I am denying my sexual repression and my need for a beta male as opposed to the more masculine alpha I only think I want (though apparently in other conversations these beta males would also need to dental dam me first if going down on me due to my promiscuity and libido). I've seen people required to bow and kiss special snowflake hands - if they're even "allowed" to, and not just straight up socially bastardized - for much less in our society. I mean, I'll get over it, because I'm a middle class heterosexual white girl with a Christian background living in the US (and the south at that!) and I'm used to dealing with not having a ton of cards to play, and getting over it is what I do, but yea. It gets old to validate everyone else and not receive respect in return.

But anyway, demisexuality as the morally superior bus we should board if we would like to save our souls and prevent the infection of the human race ;P -



Metasentient said:


> I'm not as accepting as Korra. And I feel like ruffling some furs.
> 
> Wouldn't you say that sexualizing a person is (to some degree) inevitably objectifying them, or reducing them to a function rather than a complete and complex human?


You can still reduce someone to a function as a demi. Maybe you're trying to milk them of the attention you never got from mom or something and you've formed an emotional dependency. They've more become that archetype of "nurture" and have lost their complexity, becoming objectified on the pedestal of your mind. And I'm not saying that this always happens, but it definitely can. Forming an emotional attachment and/or connection to a person as a prerequisite to sex is by no means a guarantee that you see them as a whole person, or that you've even actually gotten to know them in depth at all. We can project all kinds of crap onto each other.



Metasentient said:


> There is a reason most women (probably some men) typically don't want to hear that someone's interested in them only for the sex. There's quite a huge difference in complexity and higher-level cognition/empathy involved in "I wanna fuck the shit out of them" and "I want to get to know them as a person".


The most empathetic thing someone could do for me for a while was to want to fuck the shit out of me and get me out of my mind - so for all kinds of cognitive reasons. I had spiraled down a path of dissociative thinking and I was obsessing over topics like God rape. Like the stories where Zeus or Merlin shape shifts into a trusted one (think like Claire and Christian-Smoke Monster in Lost if you've seen it) and implants the fair maiden with the anti-Christ. (Okay, I don't think that was ever one story, but it should be). Oh but Veggie, that's crazy, you should go see a therapist, what does this have to do with anything. But that's probably the solution when you're losing your mind right? Divulging it alone in a silent room with muted walls to a stranger in a pants suit? Anyway. I'm mostly fine now. I realized it was crazy, I didn't need a professional to tell me so, and I got past it by stimulating the fuck out of myself until I replaced all of my weird feelings with good ones and wasn't constantly questioning the very premise of reality, almost completely detached from the physical plane of existence. Facing paranoia and the predatory and animalistic head on.



Metasentient said:


> Those with muted sexual attraction don't do this, *since they never get to the stage of essentially sizing up another person into physical parts.*


But shouldn't you to an extent?? Refusing not to can get perverse too. For example - this person I'm forming this bond with over the internet looks like they may be underage and lying about it due to their lack of breasts and hips and their immature facial features. Maybe I'd better hold off on getting too personal with them via chit chat and forming a false sense of trust in this situation because pedophilia.

Or OMG, this person looks exactly like me, I can determine this by weighing our facial features side by side and noting that we have the same pigmentation, and I do have that long lost twin brother out there. Better be cautious cus incest. 

Or this person is telling me that they're 28 when they're clearly 102, and I'd really like my partner to stick around for our kids, so maybe he's not the one for biological reasons.

Point being, genes, physical appearance and the sensory communicate stuff to us too. 



Metasentient said:


> Most of what I described was just intended to show that the majority of those issues would be attributed to sexuals as a group. #notallsexuals, I know. I think sexual crime is sexually-motivated rather than just an unfortunate outcome of bad psychology, though that obviously plays a part.


If you're talking about rape, rape 101 teaches that it isn't about sex, but about power. So yes, it is psychologically based, and asexuals and demisexuals can commit it too.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

@_Veggie_, it was not meant to be sarcastic at all. Sure, Sweden is a much less Puritan country than the U.S., but that just means that nudity doesn't always equal sex.

Child abuse comes in many forms and sexual desires, patterns and urges are probably more often connected to other experiences than purely sexual. If a child learns to not trust too easily based on betrayal and cruelty by close family, it's not too farfetched to make the assumption than many of these children will value trust more highly as grow-ups than people who grew up in a warm, caring and nurturing environment. And this can obviously tie into trust, relaxation and lust. 

I have often wondered whether demisexuality for me is just one more way of setting up boundaries and safety gates, so basically a "weakness" rather than a strength. But that's how all these type of mechanisms function, more or less, right?
Either way, this is why for me personally demisexuality has nothing to do with morality. If it was morally based, it would indicate a choice, and it's not. 

Other people can supposedly react by becoming overly sexually open with strangers, which might be another way of attempting to rebel against childhood trauma and take control in some sort of way. Don't remember the clinical term, but it's supposedly not uncommon in young women from an abusive childhood household with no (good) male role models. I would be surprised if this doesn't apply to young men as well, but since society judges male and female sexuality by different scales, it might be hard to detect a cross-gender pattern. 

I did try ONSs a couple of times (albeit with people who I knew fairly well), but it was so disappointing that it was not worth the effort. And for most of my life, I have been more sexually active than my male partners, so the demi-thing has less to do with horniness levels than with how I get turned on. It's like sex is the final confirmation that I truly trust someone, but when I do, that confirmation used to be key to feel safe as well. The final step for me would be BDMS, but I don't think that'll ever become reality, which I'm fine with. 
(And now with kids, I'm just freakin' exhausted, so sex is not real high up on my priority list anymore - probably also in part because I don't feel as close to my husband as I used to.)


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Lol, bawws on my personal page if I thank Mee2's posts which are typically not even "spammy", but he thanks SoM's deep-throat comment?

Smells like delusions of objectivity. Not fair and all.  Makes me not take seriously, no.


----------



## EternalFrost (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm probably demi and my gf is demi...the issue of being "morally superior" to people who aren't demi had never been brought up. Were all for whatever people do so long as consenting adults are involved. TBH were more concerned about people thinking demi means "Only wanting to have sex with someone after you get to know them" when it actually means "Not finding anyone you barely know, sexy" 

Seems like not a big difference but theres a huge difference between finding someone sexy and wanting to have sex with them. 

Example of my experience: Someone sends me photo of someone they think is a cute girl and asks me if I find her attractive. I LITERALLY have no idea. I will internally compare said person to the media's standard of beauty and make a guess as to if said person is attractive or not but its not based on my own feelings. I also have very little sense of physical aesthetic despite being an artist which isn't always true for people who are demi. 

lel

ALSO demi people can have casual sex and still be demi because enjoying the act of sex ≠ finding the person you're having sex with attractive.

Shocking, I know.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Metasentient said:


> Lol, bawws on my personal page if I thank Mee2's posts which are typically not even "spammy", but he thanks SoM's deep-throat comment?
> 
> Smells like delusions of objectivity. Not fair and all.  Makes me not take seriously, no.


Mee2 is a trickster.

He bought me my first and only infraction that I didn't even tell on myself for 

(Though that's not to say that he was responsible. I'm not entirely sure how it happened).

*Pays respects to mods*

(^not sarcastic)

(^seriously)


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Mee2 is a trickster.
> 
> He bought me my first and only infraction that I didn't tell on myself for


Your last sentence just broke this geriatric brain for the evening, the hospital will be sending you the check in the mail shortly.
.
My first and only (as of yet) infraction was completely well-deserved and very much worth it. Though I felt almost bad because it was like kicking a bully in the nuts.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Veggie said:


> Well my post was kinda about nurture vs. nature and it wasn't meant to be insulting, it was speculative. I've questioned my own sexuality in terms of nature-nurture, and demi, with it's basis in emotional bonding - which isn't connected to chromosomes - seems like it has a little more leeway to me personally when it comes to debating it's origins. I like to emotionally detach from ideas and pick them apart, and I didn't think I was being too inappropriate. (Though maybe I learned my lesson with that a bit given what I shared with the crazy. LOL).


Forgot to mention that supposedly a "cheating gene" has been found in some men (I'll see if I can dig up the study), so if that type of gene truly exists, it's not impossible that a demisexual gene exists as well.
Cheating is generally viewed as some sort of emotional issue by society - less as "s/he doesn't have a choice, it's in her/his genes". 

Until the genetic code has been 100% mapped and undestood, it's hard to guess what is truly nurture vs nature. I'd say that most of the time, it's a combination of both. (Obviously - sounds stupid when written out.)

Edited to add: All right, here is one article talking about cheating genes, more focused on women. (I only skimmed through it, so I'm not prepared to defend this research or anything, but it seems pretty plausible). 
So, this makes me wonder just in general, if cheating is genetically programmed in a certain individual, is it still less moral?


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

There is also a suspected "rapist" gene. :happy:


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

You have to be very careful with that type of science to avoid very problematic implications. I can see how it could be used to judge innocent people as dangerous rapists just because of their genetics. Almost all biological deterministic arguments are missing the whole picture.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> You have to be very careful with that type of science to avoid very problematic implications. I can see how it could be used to judge innocent people as dangerous rapists just because of their genetics. Almost all biological deterministic arguments are missing the whole picture.


Not that one. The question. About your objectivity. A bit further up.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Sporadic Aura said:


> You have to be very careful with that type of science to avoid very problematic implications. I can see how it could be used to judge innocent people as dangerous rapists just because of their genetics. Almost all biological deterministic arguments are missing the whole picture.


I can see it go both ways, but yes, there are definitely risks and negative sides involved. This is true for pretty much all science and technology though and it's generally not seen as a good enough argument for people to stop researching.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Swede said:


> Forgot to mention that supposedly a "cheating gene" has been found in some men (I'll see if I can dig up the study), so if that type of gene truly exists, it's not impossible that a demisexual gene exists as well.
> Cheating is generally viewed as some sort of emotional issue by society - less as "s/he doesn't have a choice, it's in her/his genes".
> 
> Until the genetic code has been 100% mapped and undestood, it's hard to guess what is truly nurture vs nature. I'd say that most of the time, it's a combination of both. (Obviously - sounds stupid when written out.)
> ...


Ehhhhhh. The human genome isn't _that_ large, so I'm always a little dubious of assertions that we've found one gene to explain one very specific behavior, but I don't doubt that you could isolate certain genes that maybe tend to make one more promiscuous or whatever, and then tie that to cheating.

Also, do you really think whether or not it's genetic or not should affect moral judgments? It seems the most "immoral" people are generally predisposed to poor behavior due to genetic factors (or environmental factors outside of their control).

I hate saying this, but you can look at things through the lens of a sociologist and study population trends without applying them to all individuals (that's not targeted at you, Swede).


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Metasentient said:


> Not that one. The question. About your objectivity. A bit further up.


I see that one as well. I wasn't going to respond to it. I guess my only comment is this is a pretty clear example of you trying to intentionally antagonize me.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Swede said:


> I can see it go both ways, but yes, there are definitely risks and negative sides involved. This is true for pretty much all science and technology though and it's generally not seen as a good enough argument for people to stop researching.


Unless you exist on the "wrong" side as deemed by society at the time.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

I do love RT.com.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Swede said:


> I can see it go both ways, but yes, there are definitely risks and negative sides involved. This is true for pretty much all science and technology though and it's generally not seen as a good enough argument for people to stop researching.


I support research, wasn't making an argument against. I just hope that the majority of people are able to take a broader perspective on it and not a simple black and white "all people with these genes must be dangerous".


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

A tiger is separated from a household cat by its genes though.

Their genes are not so different and the tiger's size is a direct result of a genetic mutation.

FACT.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Sporadic Aura said:


> I support research, wasn't making an argument against. I just hope that the majority of people are able to take a broader perspective on it and not a simple black and white "all people with these genes must be dangerous".


It's worth noting that the worst damage is usually done by the post-hoc analysis/faulty assumptions about causation performed by the public and politicians, not the researchers, who are often explicit in stating that certain inferences shouldn't be made without more formal hypothesis testing.


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> if you identify as demisexual, by all means, do yo thang, but no, it does not make you morally superior to me, and I get really tired of people either overtly or (usually) passive-aggressively implying that. being attracted to boobs, dicks, faces, bodies, etc does not make you shallow, immoral or "objectifying", and I'm getting tired of the people who sanctimoniously jump on it as a chance to look like they're somehow more "enlightened", "deep", "interested in a more "mature" relationship"......if this is you, get over yourself.


I'm struggling for not reminding you the advice that you gave me some time ago.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Metasentient said:


> A tiger is separated from a household cat by its genes though.
> 
> Their genes are not so different and the tiger's size is a direct result of a genetic mutation.
> 
> FACT.


Tigers and household cats are different species. That would be comparable to a human and chimpanzee not a human and another human.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Tigers and household cats are different species. That would be comparable to a human and chimpanzee not a human and another human.












Maybe you should be a Biology professor, Sporadix.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Yomiel said:


> Ehhhhhh. The human genome isn't _that_ large, so I'm always a little dubious of assertions that we've found one gene to explain one very specific behavior, but I don't doubt that you could isolate certain genes that maybe tend to make one more promiscuous or whatever, and then tie that to cheating.
> 
> Also, do you really think whether or not it's genetic or not should affect moral judgments? It seems the most "immoral" people are generally predisposed to poor behavior due to genetic factors (or environmental factors outside of their control).
> 
> I hate saying this, but you can look at things through the lens of a sociologist and study population trends without applying them to all individuals (that's not targeted at you, Swede).


I don't honestly know. I'm flipping back and forth on nature vs nurture. I have fraternal twin girls and it's been extremely interesting to see them develop. Everything is pretty much kept the same around them, yet everything is different to them because they are different individuals and their experiences are sieved through their own personalities. 
I think that in many cases, people have an illusion of their own free choice that might not exist in reality. 

The reason why I'm thinking about morality is because not long ago, homosexuality was seen as an amoral choice. Most homosexuals say that their sexuality is not a choice and I don't have any reason to believe that this is not true. So, if cheating is not really a choice either, can it truly be amoral? 
I guess that we can say that amoral behavior is something that deliberately hurts someone else. So if cheating is considered bad by society, it will obviously hurt people. But if more open relationships was the norm, maybe cheating would not be seen as something amoral? (I am not promoting cheating, btw, just speculating about morality as a social construct and where an individual fits in depending on their genetic code.)

I don't think that DNA takes away from responsibility, but I also think that people who look down on alcoholics might do so because they personally don't have the predisposition to become alcoholics, which makes it harder for them to fathom how hard addiction can be. It's always easier to assume that we all are the same and therefore should be judged by the same moral standards.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Metasentient said:


> Maybe you should be a Biology professor, Sporadix.


Maybe. You can set up a scam online university. We'll make big bucks.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Sporadic doesn't believe we should treat ASPDs any differently (as a society) even when we've got the actual established genetic evidence, easily verifiable, before our eyes. XD


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Metasentient said:


> Sporadic doesn't believe we should treat ASPDs any differently (as a society) even when we've got the actual established genetic evidence, easily verifiable, before our eyes. XD


What do you mean?


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Why doesn't demisexuality notice me senpai? :crying: 

I'm not even sure. I think you were basically like... genes don't mean everything even when in this case they clearly do. And when I brought up the actual research I think you said something like... we're all humans, shouldn't judge by genes, blah blah blah. I had a hard time paying attention, sorry.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Metasentient said:


> Why doesn't demisexuality notice me senpai? :crying:
> 
> I'm not even sure. I think you were basically like... genes don't mean everything even when in this case they clearly do. And when I brought up the actual research I think you said something like... we're all humans, shouldn't judge by genes, blah blah blah. I had a hard time paying attention, sorry.


I have absolutely no recollection of that conversation at all.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Sporadic Aura said:


> What do you mean?


Maybe that knowledge can be used for good too? 

I personally think that even potential criminals have the right to get a chance for preventative help if, for example, a rape gene exists. Just like some families know that they have a predisposition for alcoholism and educate their children to be aware about the dangers of drinking alcohol and avoid connecting alcohol with celebrations and relaxation. The final choice is up to the individual, but to know that there is a predisposition might help a person make better choices.
The same applies to various types of cancer or cholesterol.

Basically, genes are more the just purely biological functions, so why can't they be used to care for (what is currently deemed as) psychological functions?

So a person who has a rape gene might want to stay away from watching violent porn, for example (speculation, but if we understand how the gene works, it might be possible to develop a preventative strategy).


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> I have absolutely no recollection of that conversation at all.


Yeah, I really had no idea what you were saying, either. Maybe that's why.

Gotta admit it sounds like your typical stance though...


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Swede said:


> I don't honestly know. I'm flipping back and forth on nature vs nurture. I have fraternal twin girls and it's been extremely interesting to see them develop. Everything is pretty much kept the same around them, yet everything is different to them because they are different individuals and their experiences are sieved through their own personalities.
> I think that in many cases, people have an illusion of their own free choice that might not exist in reality.
> 
> The reason why I'm thinking about morality is because not long ago, homosexuality was seen as an amoral choice. Most homosexuals say that their sexuality is not a choice and I don't have any reason to believe that this is not true. So, if cheating is not really a choice either, can it truly be amoral?
> ...


Right, and epigenetics is an interesting thing. I suppose, philosophically, it isn't so very important to me because I see the environment as a determinant system as well, meaning that no one _really_ has any sort of agency as we intuitively conceptualize it.

I agree with that for the most part, but because of my deterministic worldview, it has practical issues. Logically, I don't see anything as "amoral" anymore than I see a machine as being amoral when it malfunctions and hurts someone, so it's sort of a silly word in that sense, but I'm also human with emotions and expectations for others, so I instinctively condemn certain people that violate the rules of my emotional circuitry lol. In the case of cheating, sure, it doesn't have to be bad if the couple agrees that it's acceptable (probably would want to pick a word with nicer connotations in that case), but the underlying issue of deception most certainly will continue to violate most people's ideas of fairness, and I'm guessing the genes associated with that behavior are also implicated in sociopathic behavior and lack of empathy/impulse control.

Sorry, I'm rambling and this isn't on topic. I have many opinions on determinism/justice though.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Swede said:


> Maybe that knowledge can be used for good too?
> 
> I personally think that even potential criminals have the right to get a chance for preventative help if, for example, a rape gene exists. Just like some families know that they have a predisposition for alcoholism and educate their children to be aware about the dangers of drinking alcohol and avoid connecting alcohol with celebrations and relaxation. The final choice is up to the individual, but to know that there is a predisposition might help a person make better choices.
> 
> So a person who has a rape gene might want to stay away from watching violent porn, for example (speculation, but if we understand how the gene works, it might be possible to develop a preventative strategy).


Those would be excellent uses of knowledge like that. Do you think its reasonable that I'm skeptical that this is actually how the knowledge would be implemented though?


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

swingers lol
open relationships
friends with benefits ayyy


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Metasentient said:


> Yeah, I really had no idea what you were saying, either. Maybe that's why.
> 
> Gotta admit it sounds like your typical stance though...


I'm pretty sure we never had that conversation, unless for some reason I'm completely blanking.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

@Yomiel, I agree 100%. A few of the things you said I was actually thinking while writing my post, but it was getting long as it was.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Those would be excellent uses of knowledge like that. Do you think its reasonable that I'm skeptical that this is actually how the knowledge would be implemented though?


I think it's a very reasonable expectation on your part. I can foresee a scenario where people with "rape genes" are chemically castrated as a preventative method. But I guess that I also trust that most societies will get to a state of enlightenment once the knowledge settles in. It looks like that is generally the way mankind has developed so far. 

I'm an idealist when it comes to science though.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

I'm sorry, Swordsman of Montana, I couldn't generate enough traffic for your thread in the end :sad:

I have failed you capitalistic senpai

how the fuck did i not get infracted this whole fuckin time


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

I want to be an idealist. Every time I try, something/someone makes me hate everything and it stops working lol.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)




----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Yomiel said:


> I want to be an idealist. Every time I try, something/someone makes me hate everything and it stops working lol.


You can hate everything and still be an idealist. It's just a question of level of stubbornness. ;-)


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

Demisexuality, also known as confirmation bias.


"_That person with rotting teeth isn't virtuous enough for me to sex._"


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> nah, bite one off and two more grow back and choke yo ass.
> #HydraPenis


Imagine they kept being bitten off though and eventually you end up with a hundred dicks or so. Would need to get very large pants or something.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Distortions said:


> Imagine they kept being bitten off though and eventually you end up with a hundred dicks or so. Would need to get very large pants or something.


nah, I'd just let them hang loose and hunt food for me.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> nah, I'd just let them hang loose and hunt food for me.


What if it's cold


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Distortions said:


> What if it's cold


they can build houses too ya know


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> they can build houses too ya know


But don't you need to leave the house in order to hunt, or would you only do that during summer?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Distortions said:


> But don't you need to leave the house in order to hunt, or would you only do that during summer?


no, they're long enough to act as giant tentacles, while some of the smaller ones start the fire and prepare the the meal (the different sizes are specialized for different tasks)


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> no, they're long enough to act as giant tentacles, while some of the smaller ones start the fire and prepare the the meal (the different sizes are specialized for different tasks)


Sounds awkward.


----------



## Morfy (Dec 3, 2013)

Veggie said:


> If this was aimed at me I didn't say that I was a Christian, I said I come from a Christian background. (Like homeschooled cousins and stuff. I just found out one, the most rebellious of her clan, aw, is an INFJ :3).
> 
> I'm some kind of weird Taoist Poly Theist Pagan now who identifies as a very loose Christian too, but only if he's logically a vampire and/or Wiccan, because it just makes sense when you think about it and I have arguments.


It was aimed at SoM uwu


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Distortions said:


> Sounds awkward.


I prefer to think of them in terms of efficiency


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> no, they're long enough to act as giant tentacles, while some of the smaller ones start the fire and prepare the the meal (the different sizes are specialized for different tasks)


What we can expect from SoM: A yaoi tentacle bondage hentai, coming to a theater near you.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Playful Proxy said:


> What we can expect from SoM: A yaoi tentacle bondage hentai, coming to a theater near you.


eh, it's not all yaoi. sometimes I use them to choke feminazis


----------



## 124567 (Feb 12, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> if you identify as demisexual, by all means, do yo thang, but no, it does not make you morally superior to me, and I get really tired of people either overtly or (usually) passive-aggressively implying that. being attracted to boobs, dicks, faces, bodies, etc does not make you shallow, immoral or "objectifying", and I'm getting tired of the people who sanctimoniously jump on it as a chance to look like they're somehow more "enlightened", "deep", "interested in a more "mature" relationship"......if this is you, get over yourself.



I'm semi-'demisexual'..but more standardsexual actually. I get attracted to some men sometimes, but I do not do anything with my attraction until I've met my ultimate match.

Some people values 'sexually playful' people, some values modest/serious. As much as some values are universal (liking people with boundaries), even here it's personal. So yeah people can feel as proud about their standards and values as they feel without _you _feeling like they are looking down on you. Everytime I tell a guy I don't drink, play with relationship stuff, and have a specific type of person I get attracted to, they get personal because they do not fit my type and directly angryly asks me why I judge them lol! Good luck with whatever they do, but they are NOT my type. People should go for people like themselves. 

We 'demisexuals' do not expect you to be more 'serious/deep' nor should you expect us to be more sexualized. It's healthy to be attracted to body parts than rejecting those natural feelings, but ACTING on it everytime with just anyone on the street is a whole nother case.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

LoveLady said:


> I'm semi-'demisexual'.


So you re a quartersexual ? holy fuck. Are quartersexuals people who only do it at night, one day in the week with "the chosen one" ?

SOMEONE MAKE A TUMBLR PAGE ALREADY

"I made holistic love with the purest candidate of my filthy thoughts this Monday. I will now shut my desire until next week."


----------



## 124567 (Feb 12, 2013)

Sygma said:


> So you re a quartersexual ? holy fuck. Are quartersexuals people who only do it at night, one day in the week with "the chosen one" ?
> 
> SOMEONE MAKE A TUMBLR PAGE ALREADY


I didn't even know what 'demisexual' meant until 2015 lol, but I recognized a lot about me in the description. I mean I don't usually just get attracted to a physically attractive man until I know more about him. I know lots of girls going crazy over male celebs and I dont know what the fuss is about (I was once crazy about Brad Pitt but only after watching interview with the vampire, his character :blushed


----------



## Kytaari (Mar 14, 2011)

humans are so stupid for thinking sexual orientation has anything to do with moral qualities. This makes me think of the day pat buchanan made that dumb ass statement that homosexuality should be used as a moral litmus test. Even if demisexual is not moreally superior, they sure have to put up with a lot less stress becaues they don't have to get laid every night to feel content


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Demisexuality doesn't exist.

Get at me.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

Cesspool said:


> Demisexuality doesn't exist.
> 
> Get at me.


Heterosexuality does not exist.

Get at me.


----------



## rwm4768 (Sep 9, 2011)

As a demisexual (possibly even an asexual because I've never once felt the need to have sex with somebody), I find the attitude in the OP completely misses the point. If anything, I've noticed a lot more coming from the other direction.

Those with normal sexuality tell you you're messed up if you don't want to have sex. Some of the very unenlightened say that you must be gay and you just don't want to admit it. I'd imagine that those who take the moral high ground argument are simply fed up with being ridiculed for their sexual orientation.


----------



## runnerveran (Dec 19, 2011)

The limit does not exist.



Get at me.


----------



## Flamme et Citron (Aug 26, 2015)

All these made-up sexualities are annoying. There were times in my life when I didn't masturbate for months on end. I felt no physical attraction to anyone. Turns out I'm very sexual. All I needed to do was discover my body, discover what made me tick, let go of sexual hangups. I didn't grow up in a religious household but I can imagine that someone who did might easily have 40+ years' worth of sexual hangups to deal with. If you had sexual trauma, you might have a lifetime's worth of hangups to deal with. Maybe you just have a shitty libido. Maybe you have a lot of insecurities which is why you feel the need to be emotionally and intellectually close to someone before you allow yourself to be sexual with them. None of these things are sexualities, it's part of the human experience. It's very obvious that most of the people that frequent this forum are in their teens. For fucks sake you don't know anything yet.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> if you identify as demisexual, by all means, do yo thang, but no, it does not make you morally superior to me, and I get really tired of people either overtly or (usually) passive-aggressively implying that. being attracted to boobs, dicks, faces, bodies, etc does not make you shallow, immoral or "objectifying", and I'm getting tired of the people who sanctimoniously jump on it as a chance to look like they're somehow more "enlightened", "deep", "interested in a more "mature" relationship"......if this is you, get over yourself.


I wouldn't disagree with any of this.

Also, I don't even think sexuality, regardless of what your sexuality is, is a matter of morality (unless you define it according to religious prescriptions).


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Clyme said:


> I wouldn't disagree with any of this.
> 
> Also, I don't even think sexuality, regardless of what your sexuality is, is a matter of morality (unless you define it according to religious prescriptions).


it's nice we finally agree on something (well, unless we're talking about sodomizing 5 year olds. shit starts to get moral at that point)


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> it's nice we finally agree on something (well, unless we're talking about sodomizing 5 year olds. shit starts to get moral at that point)


Do we not normally agree on things?

Also, sodomizing five year-old children is immoral because of the harm it causes. Sexual behavior isn't inherently immoral.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Clyme said:


> Do we not normally agree on things?


nope =P



> Also, sodomizing five year-old children is immoral because of the harm it causes. Sexual behavior isn't inherently immoral.


exactly


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> nope =P


Ah, then you must forgive me as I don't recall.. well.. any of the discussions we've had. I'm probably just really tired though.



> exactly


Ah, so you agree. It sounded like you were trying to make the opposite point in that there was something inherently about some sexual behavior that is inherently immoral.


----------



## ptilol (Jun 27, 2013)

wanting to have sex with someone based on their physical features alone seems closer to being like a non-human animal that is ruled by instincts. humans are supposed to be smarter, better, more moral, etc. some humans value intelligence. others are no different than the rest of the beasts.... if you can't admit that valuing intelligence and an emotional connection is better than valuing loveless sex, then you just don't want to admit that some people actually are better than you. 
i only learned the term demisexual recently. i don't really think there needs to be a term for what it defines. someone can still be straight or gay without those words implying shallowness or lustiness.


----------



## Pirate (Jan 2, 2013)

Only read the first 2 pages. Did anyone point out that being physically attracted to someone isn't the same thing as "wanting to fuck the shit" [sic] out of them? Or that being physically attracted can just as easily be a transition to genuinely wanting to get to know someone as thinking they're funny or sharing a hobby? It's all the same thing: They have a quality the attracted person finds interesting or desirable. What that quality is doesn't matter. People acting on a non-sexual attraction are also 100% capable of objectifying people in other ways (thinking of people as objects to be used doesn't necessarily mean sex, it can also mean comfort or money or any other utilitarian function you can think of.) To a degree, that's what all human relationships are. If my friends didn't offer good times and emotional support they'd hardly be my friends, and vice versa. We are all objects to be used by others so long as we exist in a society, welcome to reality. It's not a problem until it's non-consentual and (not or, and) damaging.


----------



## MatuvoNamikaz3 (Aug 2, 2014)

No. do you know the definition of Demisexuality? "Demisexuality is a sexual orientation in which someone feels sexual attraction only to people with whom they have an emotional bond." that key word;bond, it means its both ways. of course sexual attraction is an emotional feeling, but it's not a bond unless BOTH of you feel it. that is the point of Demisexuality. it does make one more morally acute; because it inevitably allows someone to appreciate people for more than just "objects."

They will be deeper and more moral than people who are not Demisexual because they can literally see past that. i see this completely as a blessing. this is exactly how people should be.


----------



## Pirate (Jan 2, 2013)

There's not some magical detector for mutual feelings. It's perfectly capable of being 1 sided. Also, gotta point out, attraction doesn't mean just sexual, nor was that my intended context when I said "quality the attracted person finds interesting or desirable." Also, BS. I already explained how there are many ways to objectify a person that have no bearing on orientation because they're based on utility. Further, anyone who isn't a sociopath can see people as more than just objects, that doesn't mean they don't also see them as objects in whatever context.


----------



## mastervule (Jul 7, 2014)

I agree with you completely! But I think society should start paying more attention to other things besides phisical apperance. Cause lets face it. We live in shallow society where people are judged by way they look. And Im proud to be one of few who see that there is more to a person then good looking ass, big boobs or six pack. But do I think Im better justbecause of that? No I dont.


----------



## ReverieInSight (Sep 22, 2015)

Yomiel said:


> Ok, and I don't condemn people for those drives alone. The culprit is lack of some inhibitory system.


Yeah. How can you say just because someone has a sex drive he's immoral? I'm sorry, it's something natural. Some people have it, and some don't, and even that may make sense biologically and is in a way natural.
The sex drive isn't immoral. _How you go about it makes the difference._ If you rape someone, you've done something immoral. But if you choose to only have sex with the person you love - that is not immoral, just _natural_. 

If you are willing to engage in one night stands, that's your own personal choice and you can think about that whatever the hell you want. But at the end of the day if you don't want to do that or not is a personal preference. And you can choose to be a judgemental a*s towards people who have one night stand, or think you are morally superior, or you come to understand that in the real world there are people who do things completely different than you and accept that, because,_ tolerance_, everyone's entitled to do what they want, and _if you want to be understood and tolerated for who you are, you might as well try to tolerate and understand people for who they are._


----------



## artastrophe (Apr 4, 2013)

Flamme et Citron said:


> All these made-up sexualities are annoying.


 Your first instinct upon encountering other people's life experiences should not be to deem them inaccurate or outright false simply because they do not fit with what you've experienced. While your perceptions of abuse or insecurities could certainly be true in some cases, you are painting with such a wide brush: projecting your own life onto other people's and believing it is an objective truth is a very dangerous kind of ignorance...



Flamme et Citron said:


> For fucks sake you don't know anything yet.


 Which makes it rather ironic that you admit that at certain stages of life people are more ignorant than others; a (healthy) INTP's standard approach to life is that they are always gathering data and expanding their awareness, yet you sound as if you believe you've reached a plateau of Absolute Knowledge that others can only hope to aspire to, when it is certainly possible other people's experiences (those older than you, even! ) led them to completely different conclusions. These are all extremely subjective perceptions of reality: What makes your life experiences more valid than another person's?


----------



## Fredward (Sep 21, 2013)

I'll add: stop trying to lift normal things into a higher sphere of being. 'I need a deeper, meaningful emotional connection to care for someone/fuck them' so do most people though. That is literally the definition of a relationship. I don't have any handy statistics on how many people have regular casual sex with total strangers but I get the feeling they might actually be the minority, generally people need to have a deeper connection to do the sexytime. You don't hear the people who do indulge in oodles and oodles of faceless sex calling themselves genitalsexuals or whatever though. Also, it still irks me that it's called sapio_sexual _when most people use it as a modifier over their actual sexuality.


----------



## artastrophe (Apr 4, 2013)

It seems to me that the tone of everyone disparaging demisexuality is incredibly defensive as if it were a personal attack upon their own morality/preferences, although given the title of the thread perhaps that was a given. 

In the hopes that it is stemming from misunderstanding/ignorance and not, say, a deep-seated willful antagonism, I will try to explain my own discovery of the term. 

I'm sure most people here felt a great relief at discovering MBTI and their personality type, for it explained all the things about them they had struggled with and all the ways they didn't fit in or relate to other people; it defined why you were 'weird' and why no one 'gets' you and almost gave you a validation or permission to be yourself: there wasn't anything 'wrong' with you.

When I ran into the term 'demisexual' earlier this year (and in fact discovered 'asexuality' which I did not realize was a thing, either), I felt that same kind of bone-deep relief where I could understand that I wasn't defective and broken but simply different: I lived the first twenty-two years of my life without feeling any interest in dating/sex (I believe I am either aromantic or perhaps demiromantic, not sure; it's all very confusing xD); I never felt those spikes of sexual attraction or urges or anything. 

(I didn't even attempt to masturbate until I was 30 and was overall rather unimpressed by the experience and have little interest in it: I don't have any sexual impulses of any kind. I can find people aesthetically attractive, but there is never a physical sensation accompanying it or a desire to see more of them.) 

And the reason I don't identify as 'purely' asexual is that in my early twenties, a guy I'd worked with for over a year and gotten to be friends with suddenly became more than that and for the first time in my life I felt sexual desire. (Haha that sounds so funny like that but I don't know how else to say it. xD)

I haven't felt any attraction to anyone since that relationship ended, and that was like seven years ago. I haven't dated anyone or felt any desire to try (aside from the barrage of 'WHY DON'T YOU' from family members). At least this year I learned that there is a word for this which opens up the possibility that if I wished I could try to meet people and know that my interest in sex could potentially be activated versus me having no words to explain why I didn't understand what was 'wrong' and believing I was an unsuitable partner that no one could have any interest in. It's a relatively new adjustment as that kind of weight is hard to shake. (I unfortunately didn't learn about MBTI until my late twenties, so spent most of my life -- as a female INTP -- completely confused about where I was supposed to fit in; I think it probably takes awhile to lose those kind of insecurities.) 

If there are demisexuals out there who appear to be condescending about their sexuality, consider that it could very well be a coping mechanism for how screwed-up their own background is and them being made to feel defective by a culture that is obsessed with sex. Once you start looking out for any instance of sexualization or sex (in media, advertising, clothing, etc) and understand that asexuals feel uncomfortable if not disgusted each time that shows up (and no, it's not about 'prudishness'), and each time they see it/read it/hear it, that is a slap in the face that they are not like that and don't understand it. They feel different than you because they are. Society makes that a 'bad' difference, and the natural impulses of psychology to cope with that is to turn it into a 'good' difference, so some may turn that into a moral high road. It doesn't make it true. 

There is no morality attached to the term aside from what you bring into it. I happen to be an atheist, so my life has no religious overtones that warp me into believing there is something inherently sinful about sexuality; if you have a reaction so defensive to the word 'demisexuality' that it becomes offensive, I suggest it is your own life/beliefs/values you need to look at more closely. Coming to embrace those parts of yourself will make you more healthy and better-adjusted.

There is unfortunately a great deal of screwed-up-ness in the way American culture deals with sex, particularly for women, as anyone unashamed of and embracing their sexuality is generally labeled a 'slut.' So there's bound to be issues on every side, no matter where you're coming from; no one has it easy. That's no reason to single out anyone and attack them for discovering their own path of sexuality. 

So go forth and have sex (or don't!) and try not to worry about people who live their life differently or what God might be thinking of you! There's a reason only 1% of the population is asexual and why the standard model of humanity is programmed to want to have heterosexual intercourse. And I hear it's more fun when you don't bring God with you into the bedroom.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

The thing that is ironic about this thread is "demisexuals are not morally better" turns into "agreed and also add that it doesn't exist - but if it does, it's because demisexuals are repressed, imagining things, immature, ignorant, etc".

How about not writing everything you haven't experienced personally off as nonexistent? It takes a bunch of other qualities to accept that other people may have a different pov - imagination, curiosity, ability to listen, the will to understand, a wider range of friends/input/experiences, etc. 

To only see life from your own pov is often associated with confirmation bias.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

MatuvoNamikaz3 said:


> They will be deeper and more moral than people who are not Demisexual because they can literally see past that. i see this completely as a blessing. this is exactly how people should be


I hope you're trolling, to be honest. If not, you don't seem to have any knowledge or understanding of what sexual attraction actually means. 

You're not any more "moral" because of a certain innate quality, because this certain innate quality says nothing about how you are as a person apart from... you get the picture... I hope? It's like saying I'm more moral than you for having green eyes. Which would be a very arbitrary marker for determining someone's moral compass.

Grow up, seriously. It's this kind of bullshit opinions that gives anyone who identifies as demisexual a bad reputation.


----------



## Cbyermen (Nov 28, 2014)

Yes! I agree 100%.

Saying that just because you're a demisexual, you're more "developed" or "mature" than people with other sexualities is just like saying "I'm a heterosexual, so I'm better than homosexuals." You're putting your sexuality over other person's, and that's not right.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Its not demisexuality that makes me morally superior. Its the fact that I exist.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Swede said:


> The thing that is ironic about this thread is "demisexuals are not morally better" turns into "agreed and also add that it doesn't exist - but if it does, it's because demisexuals are repressed, imagining things, immature, ignorant, etc".
> 
> How about not writing everything you haven't experienced personally off as nonexistent? It takes a bunch of other qualities to accept that other people may have a different pov - imagination, curiosity, ability to listen, the will to understand, a wider range of friends/input/experiences, etc.
> 
> To only see life from your own pov is often associated with confirmation bias.


This is why I wish we had a "save post" feature.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

If we are going by the definition of looking for deep emotional connection as moral. Here's what I think.

If anything, isn't a sexual who wants to bone random people but wait until a meaningful relationship more moral? I mean they have sexual desires TOWARDS random people and yet they acquire self control and they refrain from one night stands. So that proves there's emotional and physical effort put in there.

Whereas demisexuals do not have sexual desires towards random people or people they have no emotional bond with. They do not need any effort to be "morally superior". It comes naturally to them. It's like being born beautiful and into a rich family. They didn't acquire this superior morality. (Note that demisexuals can still choose to have one night stands and meaningless sex if they wanted to. I'm guessing the percentage would be quite low though.)

So if you ask me, the ones who have to put in more effort to be moral are morally superior.

Technically, I'm demiromantic. I don't use that term because it serves no purpose to me expect for topics like this. I can only be romantically attracted to someone after I've loved them deeply. I don't think that makes me superior in any way and I thought this whole demi- thing was all bogus until I realized I am one. 

I still think the label is unnecessary because demi- is all based on "one day if there's a deep emotional bond between us, I might be attracted to you" so there's no point in saying that to someone because that to me is stringing along someone. On one hand, we need to see that people experience attraction in many different ways. It's really interesting if you think about it. If you think demis are trying to be morally superior just by saying this is how they experience attraction, then that's your problem. Not theirs. On the other hand, if you are using demi- as an excuse to talk down sexual people, then you are an asshole.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

I grew up in a fairly religious community where I was told more times than I could count that you're not supposed to have sexual urges unless you're married and that if you do, you're objectifying the other person, so that got me thinking a lot about this issue. I don't think there's anything wrong with being sexually attracted to someone. It's biology, and trying to fight it is just an exercise in frustration. I don't feel offended just because someone is sexually attracted to me. I don't necessarily want to know if someone masturbated to me and what he/she imagined me doing while that was happening, but if it happened, no problem. What I do have a problem with is people's attitudes and actions when they feel those urges, like those guys who walk around just reeking of this smug sense of entitlement to me and every woman they come in contact with, or the guys who sexually harassed me while I was working as an actress in a family theme park, or the guys who molested me and wouldn't listen when I said no. Those are the people I have a problem with. Those are the ones that make me feel demeaned and dirty and disgusting, not the ones who want to have sex with me but understand that I'm not just a sex toy with a heartbeat and are willing to accept it if I don't want to have sex with them.


----------

