# Demisexual Scale



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Perhaps said:


> The points stand whether one is talking about attraction or the act of having sex.
> 
> UNLESS you're making the point that orientation is dependent on the act of sex itself, rather than attraction, in which case, I'm so out of here because I'm not willing to travel back in time with you.


As previously stated, it's about ATTRACTION. All sexual orientations deal with who you are sexually attracted to.... A demisexual experiences sexual ATTRACTION only after a bond has been established.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

josue0098 said:


> As previously stated, it's about ATTRACTION. All sexual orientations deal with who you are sexually attracted to.... A demisexual experiences sexual ATTRACTION only after a bond has been established.


How is this an orientation unto itself?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Because it deals with who someone is sexually attracted to, just the same as heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, etc, do.

It is also not about simply wanting a connection before engaging in sex... I literally do not experience sexual attraction until I have a bond with someone...

oops.. forgot to hit reply... @Perhaps


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

josue0098 said:


> As previously stated, it's about ATTRACTION. All sexual orientations deal with who you are sexually attracted to.... A demisexual experiences sexual ATTRACTION only after a bond has been established.


Are you saying now as well that _can_ you have sex with people even though you are not sexually attracted to them? This question should also be seen in relation to your previous post here.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

josue0098 said:


> It is also not about simply wanting a connection before engaging in sex... I literally do not experience sexual attraction until I have a bond with someone...


And you think this _isn't_ the case for many of those who identify as heterosexual, bisexual, etc.?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> Are you saying now as well that you have sex with people you are not sexually attracted to? This question should also be seen in relation to your previous post here.



I had sex before I experienced sexual attraction for the first time.. Although I fail to see how this is relevant. Sexual orientation have nothing to do with who you have sex with. I's about who you are sexually attracted to. A heterosexual male could have sex with a guy out of curiosity, and this does not make him bisexual or homosexual. Just a heterosexual guy that decided to have sex with another male.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Perhaps said:


> And you think this _isn't_ the case for many of those who identify as heterosexual, bisexual, etc.?


I do not. It may happen to them on occasion, but generally, they are sexually attracted regardless of whether or not there is a bond.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Perhaps said:


> And you think this _isn't_ the case for many of those who identify as heterosexual, bisexual, etc.?


The hetero, ****, bisexual orientations are on a different scale than the sexual, demisexual, and asexual scale. Anyone can be any combination of the two scales.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> The hetero, ****, bisexual orientations are on a different scale than the sexual, demisexual, and asexual scale. Anyone can be any combination of the two scales.


I think this is entering into the -romantic area... Such as heteroromantic asexual, homoromantic asexual, etc... but that should probably be on another thread xP I'm a heteroromantic demi.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

josue0098 said:


> I think this is entering into the -romantic area... Such as heteroromantic asexual, homoromantic asexual, etc... but that should probably be on another thread xP I'm a heteroromantic demi.


To use precise terminology, you are probably correct, though as a demisexual, I have trouble rationalizing the difference between -romantic and -sexual, and reflexively assume them to be the same.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

josue0098 said:


> I do not. It may happen to them on occasion, but generally, they are sexually attracted regardless of whether or not there is a bond.


Again, refer to my comment about the false dichotomy between "sexy sexuals" and "demisexuals," because this is the sort of thinking I was referring to.



Nobleheart said:


> The hetero, ****, bisexual orientations are on a different scale than the sexual, demisexual, and asexual scale. Anyone can be combination of the two scales.


Then, from that, it seems like you're attempting to measure and qualify individual differences in attraction levels, more than anything else.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Perhaps said:


> While the Kinsey scale is a rather reductive perspective on the scope of human sexuality, and that, by general consensus with regards to the definition, I'd be demisexual, the concept bothers me.
> 
> It's almost inherently sex-shaming in that it creates an artificial social distance between "romantic sex" and "casual sex." These are two forms of _sexual expression_, and not sexualities unto themselves. This is also a false dichotomy, and reductionist, as well. One need not distinguish themselves from the ~*~*other sexy sexuals out there because, fact is, most human beings are much more comfortable engaging in sexual activity with someone they have an emotional connection with. We are social animals who like to bond. I've always figured this was something widely known and accepted.
> 
> There's also the fact that demisexuality seems almost like a glorification of traditional/idealized romantic->sexual relationships, but that's opening a whole 'nother can of worms.


You mean this?

No. It has nothing to do with simply preferring to to engage in sexual activity with someone you have an emotional connection with. Again, it's about SEXUAL ATTRACTION.

I could have sex with any random girl that came up to me. Have crazy wild sex all night and enjoy it, and never have been sexually attracted to her.

All the same, I could become very close to someone, become sexually attracted, and NOT have sex.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> To use precise terminology, you are probably correct, though as a demisexual, I have trouble rationalizing the difference between -romantic and -sexual, and reflexively assume them to be the same.


I considered myself aseuxal most of my life, so I guess I kind of learned the difference.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Perhaps said:


> Then, from that, it seems like you're attempting to measure and qualify individual differences in attraction levels, more than anything else.


Yes. The term orientation should apply to hetero, ****, or bisexual. We need a different term to describe this proposed scale.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> Yes. The term orientation should apply to hetero, ****, or bisexual. We need a different term to describe this proposed scale.


I think this makes sense... But I don't know what word would best fit the sexual-asexual spectrum.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Perhaps said:


> How is this an orientation unto itself?


It isn't.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@Perhaps @mimesis @Whoever else

Demisexuality is not a choice. There's a big difference between deciding not to sleep with someone, and actually not getting physically aroused by someone unless I feel an intimate connection with them. I genuinely don't get turned on thinking of a random guy who has a perfect body. That does NOTHING for me, I've always had zero reaction to things like that. Girls squealing over a hot actor have always baffled me, not in the SOCIAL sense, simply in that I cannot understand how that could arouse someone, physically. I've always been a sucker for certain types of personality characteristics, though. 

When I don't have a 'bond' with someone, I might as well be asexual. I pretty much AM asexual unless I'm developing feelings for someone, or starting to. Again, let me reiterate: I don't get wet when I think of fucking a random hot guy - and I never have - because hotness is very subjective to me, and tied to emotional & personality compatibility. If you still have issues with this concept, then I think you'll have to attack asexuality on a broader scale. 

It is also not a social reaction because I think nothing of people who have casual sex, and my opinion of them is certainly not negative - it's more like they intrigue me a little. I hope this makes sense.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

kaleidoscope said:


> @_Perhaps_ @_mimesis_ @_Who_ever else
> 
> Demisexuality is not a choice. There's a big difference between deciding not to sleep with someone, and actually not getting physically aroused by someone unless I feel an intimate connection with them. I genuinely don't get turned on thinking of a random guy who has a perfect body. That does NOTHING for me, I've always had zero reaction to things like that. Girls squealing over a hot actor have always baffled me, not in the SOCIAL sense, simply in that I cannot understand how that could arouse someone, physically. I've always been a sucker for certain types of personality characteristics, though.
> 
> ...


My only issue with this is that I don't see why it needs to be considered an orientation unto itself if it is, indeed, about levels of attraction and not the sex one experiences attraction towards. 

I do not experience sexual attraction towards those I don't already have a close bond with, but I am pansexual because I can be attracted to all sexes/genders. I can be romantically attracted to someone without wanting to have sex with them. I would also postulate that there are many others who are similar, regardless of their orientation. "More sexual than x" or "less sexual than y" presumes that there is a quantifiable standard in human romantic and/or sexual attraction levels that one can use as a benchmark, and it is this underlying assumption that I vehemently disagree with.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

I've been doing a lot of thinking about demisexuality since this thread started. I hope this doesn't come off as offensive to others who claim it, but I also doubt that it in itself is an orientation. You _cannot_ help being demisexual, but that doesn't in and of itself equal sexual orientation. You can be a straight demisexual, bi demisexual, homosexual demisexual. It really is just a mode of attraction. Everyone is different. Some people need the bond, some people don't.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Eerie said:


> I've been doing a lot of thinking about demisexuality since this thread started. I hope this doesn't come off as offensive to others who claim it, but I also doubt that it in itself is an orientation. You _cannot_ help being demisexual, but that doesn't in and of itself equal sexual orientation. You can be a straight demisexual, bi demisexual, homosexual demisexual. It really is just a mode of attraction. Everyone is different. Some people need the bond, some people don't.


I think some of the people here might actually agree with you. :wink:


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Nobleheart said:


> This thread has caused me to question whether or not I am actually speaking English, or the concepts I am trying to relate are so utterly alien to some people that I might as well be speaking another language when discussing them.


Your argument seems to hinge on mincing words to back up your point which makes it perplexing for other people to understand you.



> You've just described an approach to sexuality based on your own preferences, and then asserted that this is the case for everyone. That's simply bad logic, especially when the subject at hand is individual preferences.


No, it isn't. I've said nothing about how I go about choosing sex partners, all I've done is speak about humans biologically and psychologically in the realm of sex.



> Sex and sexual attraction are two entirely different things. They aren't required to co exist. It's just preferable that they do. I'm sorry you're unable to wrap your head around this concept.


Are you really trying to argue that one does not inform the other? A want for sex urges a person to look for a partner, the course f such a search will eventually lead them to be attracted to someone, thus allowing sex to occur. I don't see how you can explain, through biology why a person would have sexual wants but have no desire to fulfill them. If you've got some data, link us all up.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

@Perhaps - Explain something to me. 

You say you don't understand how how this is an "orientation unto itself". Yet, I think I've seen you agree on the concept. (There's too many posts in this thread to find the exact post.)

Okay. So, maybe it is not an orientation, but it is a very real phenomena that can be gauged and qualified by varying degrees albeit those degrees are not fixed for every situation. Therefore what this scale is attempting to do, is find a manner to express in which people specifically experience their attraction for others because for god's sake that is how we ultimately communicate with each other. 

@TWN - I saw you and others say this carries an implicit form of slut shaming around with it. 

Well, I could imagine there are people immature enough to take this reasoning and uphold "demisexuals" as supreme beings. However, I don't believe in catering to the whims of fools. 

I believe these two different manners of sexual attraction can coexist and neither be judged more harshly or better than each other. They're different, and that is all. There is nothing wrong with desiring sex, but it's not absurd to think that a person needs a connection with another person to thoroughly enjoy sex. 

Sexual attraction has developed both primarily and secondarily me in life. I don't think either is more or less invalid than the other. 

@android654 - Can you biologically explain why we fall in love? Explain that to me, and I feel like you won't be fall off from the mark of explaining how sometimes sexual attraction comes second. In my opinion, I really don't think being "demisexual" means the inability to experience sexual desires but rather not feeling that attraction to anyone unless there is a connection. Then if a person has a low sex drive which some people do (asexuals are very much a real thing), then it would seem plausible that some people never notice their desires until a strong attraction is in place. 


_(I realize I have this interesting way of responding to random things said in this thread with this post, but I really don't care about conventional post structuring at this point.)_


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Haha, no of course it doesn't come down to having an erection or not. But if sex is not so important, why make the distinction? Besides, who says I don't have any established, deep loving, long term bonds as of now? It's happening and it's real, not just an ideal written in neon. I know what it is and what it takes. I do have a heart.


Nobody said a complete sexual lacked a heart, or desire to connect before having sex.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> How does this make sense? I agree with @_android654_, how can you call yourself a demisexual if you can have sex outside that bond you supposedly "need"?
> 
> A demisexual cannot be SEXUALLY AROUSED hence not be able to have sex unless they have that intimacy with someone. I think you have it all wrong, honestly.


Libido and sexual attraction have nothing to do with each other. Don't people get aroused and masturbate while they are alone in their rooms? I CAN get aroused, even if I don't find someone sexually attractive. I never said I need a bond to HAVE sex. I said I need a bond to experience SEXUAL ATTRACTION. Why is it so difficult to separate the two?


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

saintless said:


> @_Perhaps_ - Explain something to me.
> 
> You say you don't understand how how this is an "orientation unto itself". Yet, I think I've seen you agree on the concept. (There's too many posts in this thread to find the exact post.)
> 
> ...


I agree.

From the first moment I decided to have sex, my sexual experiences have been vastly different from most. At this point I dont know if most people are lying to conform to society, or genuinely have better sex with emotional bonds; and to be honest, I dont really care.

I accept everyone, and their definition of their own sexuality.

Speaking for myself, good sex comes from good sexual chemistry. Ive probably mentioned my sexual disaster story a few times here, and the basics were I met a guy, fell in love, waited to have sex with him, and the sex was so horrible I was disgusted by the experience; and after a second try we both just backed away from each other.

I dont know if that makes me a hyper-sexual, or what, but I know that my body does not respond well to sex where the re is no sexual spark, regardless of emotional feelings. 

So for me, and only me, I dont understand how individuals can claim to be sexually driven by only emotions; and since I tried it, that statement does not come easy, or from ignorance. 

Im accepting of everyone, *but there are some things I will never fully understand, because they are so closely attached to individuals.*

I think everyone in this hell hole of a topic needs to realize that everyone is different.

Where's a bucket of cold water when you need it. ^_^


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

android654 said:


> Then what's the point of the label at all? You yourself say that someone who is demisexual can go about fucking everyone and still be demisexual, clearly punching a big fat hole in the "pair bonding is necessary" theory. It's already an observed fact that mammals compete for partners and bonds form after that fact, but the whole point of seeking a partner to form that bond is the need for sex, not the other way around unless you have a chemical imbalance which results in a low libido.


The bonding is necessary to experience sexual attraction What the heck? What is this so difficult to understand? having sex does not mean sexual attraction. Is a prostitute attracted to every man she has sex with?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

saintless said:


> @_android654_ - Can you biologically explain why we fall in love?


Biological factors: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Harlow (1958)

Neurological factors: Love, The Thing Called Love - National Geographic Magazine

Nature is the foundation by which we do things, and there's nothing to suggest in what we know about ourselves as a species that pair bonding is limited to two people, periods in our lives or as the sole driving force behind a need for sex.



> Explain that to me, and I feel like you won't be fall off from the mark of explaining how sometimes sexual attraction comes second. In my opinion, I really don't think being "demisexual" means the inability to experience sexual desires but rather not feeling that attraction to anyone unless there is a connection. Then if a person has a low sex drive which some people do (asexuals are very much a real thing), then it would seem plausible that some people never notice their desires until a strong attraction is in place.


That's the complication behind all of this. Yes asexuality is a real thing, it can be found by tracking the same factors that drive hetero/****/bisexuality. Pair bonding exists for the sole purpose of sticking together after a certain amount of time has been spent together, time where sexual contact would have been made. We know this since many of the neurological reasons for love come as a result of sex. Speaking from a scientific position, demisexuality is impossible prior to sex since the chemicals needed to pair bond come as a result of sex.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

TWN said:


> I think everyone in this hell hole of a topic needs to realize that everyone is different.


I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's just that this is isn't some special little snowflake in the realm of sexuality.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

> Sexual arousal (also sexual excitement) is the arousal of sexual desire, during or in anticipation of sexual activity. A number of physiological changes occur in the body and mind as preparation for sex and continue during it. Genital changes are not the only changes but noticeable and necessary for consensual and comfortable intercourse. When men are aroused they typically get an erection. When women are aroused, they typically get engorged sexual tissues (nipples; vulva; clitoris; vaginal walls) and vaginal lubrication (wetness). Mental stimuli and physical stimuli such as touch, and the internal fluctuation of hormones, can influence sexual arousal.
> 
> Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest. Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal refers to an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice. The attraction can be to the physical or other qualities or traits of a person, or to such qualities in the context in which they appear. The attraction may be to a person's looks or movements or to their voice or smell, besides other factors. The attraction may be enhanced by a person's adornments, clothing, perfume, hair length and style, and anything else which can attract the sexual interest of another person. It can also be influenced by individual genetic, psychological, or cultural factors, or to other, more amorphous qualities of the person. Sexual attraction is also a response to another person that depends on a combination of the person possessing the traits and also on the criteria of the person who is attracted.
> 
> ...


They USUALLY go together, but this does not mean I cannot get aroused and have sex unless I am sexually attracted to someone. My hormones go crazy, I have a partner... Why not do something she wants? 

To say that a demisexual cannot have sex without having a bond with someone is like saying a sexual cannot have sex with someone they are not attracted to. It's just false. It's not so difficult to understand that, although they usually happen together, Arousal, attraction, and having sex are not exclusive to each other.

Is the prostitute attracted to every man she has sex with? No. She is not, and it would be ridiculous to assume so. This is the same thinking some people seem to have here. "You had sex, therefore you are attracted." A prostitute could actually be asexual, and still have sex with the men.

Is a virgin not attracted to anybody at all? No. She or he could be attracted to dozens of people, but decide to not act upon it for whatever reason.


Sexual attraction is not the same as having sex, nor does it imply that someone will act upon said attraction. Likewise, LACK of sexual attraction is not the same as NOT having sex, nor does it imply you cannot have it.


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

josue0098 said:


> They USUALLY go together, but this does not mean I cannot get aroused and have sex unless I am sexually attracted to someone. My hormones go crazy, I have a partner... Why not do something she wants?
> 
> To say that a demisexual cannot have sex without having a bond with someone* is like saying a sexual *cannot have sex with someone they are not attracted to. It's just false. It's not so difficult to understand that, although they usually happen together, Arousal, attraction, and having sex are not exclusive to each other.



It would be so nice if people would stop referring to hetero/****/pan-sexuals simply as "sexuals". 

It seems as if it has a derogatory undertone, as if demisexuals do not have sex at all.

If you can say asexual, you can say homosexual.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

TWN said:


> It would be so nice if people would stop referring to hetero/****/pan-sexuals simply as "sexuals".
> 
> It seems as if it has a derogatory undertone, as if demisexuals do not have sex at all.


They are on different spectrum. They have nothing to do with the sexual-asexual spectrum. Although, usually, someone who identifies as hetero, **** or bi, are sexuals. USUALLY. I never said a hetero cannot be demi. I am hetero and also demi. I am going to draw a chart and upload a pic. Gimme a sec.


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

josue0098 said:


> They are on different spectrum. They have nothing to do with the sexual-asexual spectrum. Although, usually, someone who identifies as hetero, **** or bi, are sexuals. USUALLY. I never said a hetero cannot be demi. I am hetero and also demi. I am going to draw a chart and upload a pic. Gimme a sec.


Now I really see what @android654 was talking about.

No comment.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

android654 said:


> Speaking from a scientific position, demisexuality is impossible prior to sex since the chemicals needed to pair bond come as a result of sex.


Completely and patently false. 

These chemicals can be released for a great deal of reasons. Parents have these chemical bonds with their children. Family members and friends build these chemicals for one another slowly over time. "Male bonding" is a classic example of this.

Furthermore, these chemicals needn't be released during sex. Prostitutes don't have them with their clients. These chemicals are released when the sex is _meaningful_ which is the same reason these chemicals are released in other relationships - because the mind considers those moments meaningful.



android654 said:


> I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's just that this is isn't some special little snowflake in the realm of sexuality.


Demisexuality is in fact common, despite your assumptions to the contrary or dismissive attitude toward it.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

josue0098 said:


> Nobody said a complete sexual lacked a heart, or desire to connect before having sex.


No I had said to have broken a quite a few hearts before, so I thought to balance that a bit.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Nobleheart said:


> Completely and patently false.


No, you're simply wrong and ignored my request for you to back up your own position with information, but I think I know why.



> These chemicals can be released for a great deal of reasons. Parents have these chemical bonds with their children.


After 9 months of labor and children are born.



> Family members and friends build these chemicals for one another slowly over time.


After relationships are formed and tested over time. 



> Furthermore, these chemicals needn't be released during sex.


Yet they are.



> Prostitutes don't have them with their clients.


Data on sex workers and hormonal releases during sex with clients?



> These chemicals are released when the sex is _meaningful_ which is the same reason these chemicals are released in other relationships - because the mind considers those moments meaningful.


Check the reports I linked above. Science shows that "meaningful" sex does not release these chemicals, but the release of those chemicals during sex builds attachment.

Seriously, I've linked the data backing my position already. If you have real science that proves all of Neurochemistry backwards then show it. You simply saying things to back your position doesn't prove a thing other than you *really *believe your position.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

TWN said:


> It would be so nice if people would stop referring to hetero/****/pan-sexuals simply as "sexuals".
> 
> It seems as if it has a derogatory undertone, as if demisexuals do not have sex at all.
> 
> If you can say asexual, you can say homosexual.












It's a 3d chart. It may or may not make any more sense, but it does to me.

There is the Hetero-**** spectrum, the sexual asexual spectrum, and the third one is the pansexual-romantic spectrum. In between **** and hetero is bi, in between sexual and asexual is demi, and in between pansexual and the romantic spectrum would be just the average person, although I probably chose the wrong word in the pansexual area. anyway, I know this is not what pansexual is, but I used it to mean with no romance involved. No offense to pansexuals.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)




----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

josue0098 said:


> It's a 3d chart. It may or may not make any more sense, but it does to me.
> 
> There is the Hetero-**** spectrum, the sexual asexual spectrum, and the third one is the pansexual-romantic spectrum. In between **** and hetero is bi, in between sexual and asexual is demi, and in between pansexual and the romantic spectrum would be just the average person, although I probably chose the wrong word in the pansexual area. anyway, I know this is not what pansexual is, but I used it to mean with no romance involved. No offense to pansexuals.


I think the terms you are looking for are Monogamist / Poly-amorous.

Otherwise, thank you for trying to explain this to people who seem to simply refuse to accept it. This is the hardest part of creating awareness. Patience with closed minded people.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> I think the terms you are looking for are Monogamist / Poly-amorous.
> 
> Otherwise, thank you for trying to explain this to people who seem to simply refuse to accept it. This is the hardest part of creating awareness. Patience with closed minded people.


It's like they are choosing to make everything exclusive each other. Either that or they are incapable of telling the difference between having sex and being sexually attracted. Just because I want to eat an apple doesn't mean I WILL eat the apple. I just want it. But in my case, it would have to be an apple I have connected with before I WANT that specific apple, but not knowing the apple doesn't make me incapable of eating it.

"A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone. It's more commonly seen in but by no means confined to romantic relationships. The term demisexual comes from the orientation being "halfway between" sexual and asexual. Nevertheless, this term does not mean that demisexuals have an incomplete or half-sexuality, nor does it mean that sexual attraction without emotional connection is required for a complete sexuality. In general, demisexuals are not sexually attracted to anyone of any gender; however, when a demisexual is emotionally connected to someone else (whether the feelings are romantic love or deep friendship), the demisexual experiences sexual attraction and desire, but only towards the specific partner or partners."


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

How this thread makes me feel:


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

@josue0098 - Pansexual is not on a spectrum different from the hetero-**** spectrum, or at least it is not shared on the romantic spectrum. Pansexuality encompasses the entire hetero-**** spectrum but it supersedes sex and focuses more on gender.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

saintless said:


> @_josue0098_ - Pansexual is not on a spectrum different from the hetero-**** spectrum, or at least it is not shared on the romantic spectrum. Pansexuality encompasses the entire hetero-**** spectrum but it supersedes sex and focuses more on gender.


I am sorry if I offended anyone, I just couldn't find a better way to explain it, and said in the description of the image what I meant by it, although @_Nobleheart_ did find the words I needed. more like one person-multiple people. but I guess it would end up turning into a 4d chart, with the romantic-non-romantic spectrum. It's a huge mess, I know, but I know that I do not experience sexual attraction unless I feel close to someone, and people can deny something like this exists if it makes them feel better.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

android654 said:


> No, you're simply wrong and ignored my request for you to back up your own position with information, but I think I know why.


I don't need data to back up my _opinion_.



android654 said:


> After 9 months of labor and children are born.


Fathers develop these same bonds.



android654 said:


> After relationships are formed and tested over time.


Obviously, these chemicals are slow to build. That's part of the evolutionary design behind them. This is yet another instance where you have literally shocked me with your inability to think. You claim to understand how these chemicals work, and even make statements that imply that you do, yet when I imply these factors you act like I haven't. 



android654 said:


> Yet they are.


What part of the word _needn't_ do you not understand?



android654 said:


> Data on sex workers and hormonal releases during sex with clients?


Data on sex workers and hormonal releases during sex with clients to prove me wrong? 

How about we take a look at simple logic? Sex workers don't pair bond with all of their clients. Sometimes it happens, but the ratio is very small.



android654 said:


> Check the reports I linked above. Science shows that "meaningful" sex does not release these chemicals, but the release of those chemicals during sex builds attachment.


Science shows that meaningful conversation, events, and other interactions release these chemicals. It's by no means only sex. These chemicals are released in greater volumes in time of stress. This is why people who survive a near death experience together often form extremely deep bonds. Sex, childbirth, and survival are some of the most stressful experiences people go through. 



android654 said:


> Seriously, I've linked the data backing my position already. If you have real science that proves all of Neurochemistry backwards then show it. You simply saying things to back your position doesn't prove a thing other than you *really *believe your position.


You've provided links to data that you clearly don't understand in an attempt to validate your _opinion_. Data does not validate opinion. Furthermore, data does not explain how something works, which has been the subject of this thread - _opinions_ on how demisexuality works.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

kaleidoscope said:


> How this thread makes me feel:


I know that feel. In fact, I am having that feel.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

@android654 - Are you saying love doesn't happen without sex? You saying pair bonding doesn't happen without sex? Friends cannot be pair bonded? 

The links you posted don't prove anything you're claiming. Dopamine, oxytocin, etc are all chemicals associated with love and sex and have been found released to response to a variety of different things. 

I saw one of your links referenced Helen Fisher. I've read and watched a bit of her work, which has brought me to obviously vastly different conclusions than you. I was spiffy enough to have all this shit saved on my computer, but alas I am not that good. 

Therefore, I can suggest you reread things yourself and realize that even though they state the so-so thing happens in context A that doesn't mean it doesn't happen in context B given context B has yet to be explored. However, I think we can use principles to make pretty sound postulations and then hope that oen day a researcher actually looks into this (if maybe that researcher is even yourself one day).


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

josue0098 said:


> I am sorry if I offended anyone, I just couldn't find a better way to explain it, and said in the description of the image what I meant by it, although @_Nobleheart_ did find the words I needed. more like one person-multiple people. but I guess it would end up turning into a 4d chart, with the romantic-non-romantic spectrum. It's a huge mess, I know, but I know that I do not experience sexual attraction unless I feel close to someone, and people can deny something like this exists if it makes them feel better.


Actually, what you just created is the MBTI of sexuality by proposing 4 axis that would look something like this:

Heterosexual - Bisexual - Homosexual
Sexual - Demisexual - Asexual
Monogamist - Serial Monogamist - Poly-amorous
Romantic - Amorous - Non-romantic

I think it would be awesome if we used the Kinsey Scale as a basis for the first axis, then broke the others into the same structure of 0 through 6 with 3 being the midpoint.

I'd be a 2241.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

josue0098 said:


> I am sorry if I offended anyone, I just couldn't find a better way to explain it, and said in the description of the image what I meant by it, although @_Nobleheart_ did find the words I needed. more like one person-multiple people. but I guess it would end up turning into a 4d chart, with the romantic-non-romantic spectrum. It's a huge mess, I know, but I know that I do not experience sexual attraction unless I feel close to someone, and people can deny something like this exists if it makes them feel better.


Ah. I am making more sense of it now. But, no. You need a vendiagram. Kinba like this:










Only that focuses on sexual orientation alone (with sex and gender crossovers).


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> Actually, what you just created is the MBTI of sexuality by proposing 4 axis that would look something like this:
> 
> Heterosexual - Bisexual - Homosexual
> Sexual - Demisexual - Asexual
> ...


Yes, I guess this would be possible. In a few years there will be a test for it and a forum xP



saintless said:


> Ah. I am making more sense of it now. But, no. You need a vendiagram. Kinba like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that would work.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Okay, I think this will clear it up. I found a photograph of a demisexual - proving they exist.










BAM~!


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

I'm waiting for the bomb to drop.

Let me go take cover.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> Actually, what you just created is the MBTI of sexuality by proposing 4 axis that would look something like this:
> 
> Heterosexual - Bisexual - Homosexual
> Sexual - Demisexual - Asexual
> ...


I guess I would be a 2311. I think.... 2 on the first axis would be Straight, but may occasionally like males, right? I once was romantically attracted to a male.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

saintless said:


> @_android654_ - Are you saying love doesn't happen without sex? You saying pair bonding doesn't happen without sex? Friends cannot be pair bonded?
> 
> The links you posted don't prove anything you're claiming. Dopamine, oxytocin, etc are all chemicals associated with love and sex and have been found released to response to a variety of different things.
> 
> ...


You sure about Fisher?

"A woman unconsciously uses orgasms as a way of deciding whether or not a man is good for her. If he's impatient and rough, and she doesn't have the orgasm, she may instinctively feel he's less likely to be a good husband and father. Scientists think the fickle female orgasm may have evolved to help women distinguish Mr. Right from Mr. Wrong." ~Fisher

She clearly states throughout the Natgeo interview that sex is a test of sorts in determining whether a mate is a good match for you or not, and further on in the article she talks about how sex deepens the responses from the brain that we interpret as love. So for a romantic relationship sex is a big part of the foundation that determines whether a bond will be formed among certain persons.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

android654 said:


> You sure about Fisher?
> 
> "A woman unconsciously uses orgasms as a way of deciding whether or not a man is good for her. If he's impatient and rough, and she doesn't have the orgasm, she may instinctively feel he's less likely to be a good husband and father. Scientists think the fickle female orgasm may have evolved to help women distinguish Mr. Right from Mr. Wrong." ~Fisher
> 
> She clearly states throughout the Natgeo interview that sex is a test of sorts in determining whether a mate is a good match for you or not, and further on in the article she talks about how sex deepens the responses from the brain that we interpret as love. So for a romantic relationship sex is a big part of the foundation that determines whether a bond will be formed among certain persons.


And, how does that counteract the inability to feel sexual attraction until a bond is formed? That only explains that the act of sex can form bonds, which no one is refuting. 

Though, I will bite.

It is tue that sex is necessary in a majority of cases for a healthy, romantic relationship. However, some people get along fine without it. And, again. People fall in love without having sex as well, but would you also like to make an analogous argument that gay people aren't gay until they fucked some of the same sex? Oooh, that will ruffle some feathers. 

Helen Fisher, I know, has research that there are brain structures related to mate selection and sexual attraction and there are separate, independently operating brain structures related to pair bonding and romantic attraction. These things work independently from each other but they can influence each other. 

In the case of the "demisexual", one doesn't become activated until the other one does. 

That's postulation, but there is enough reported cases to say this is true. I would love to have the science to prove, but I am sure you would love to have the science to disprove. Until then, I see no reason for you to invalidate the feelings and moods of others because that is exactly what your condemnatory tone is doing. 

It's not bullshit. It's human nature.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

saintless said:


> And, how does that counteract the inability to feel sexual attraction until a bond is formed? That only explains that the act of sex can form bonds, which no one is refuting.


That would be proving a negative, which can not be done. That's why I've been asking for some science or data to back it up, but no one has anything.



> Though, I will bite.
> 
> It is tue that sex is necessary in a majority of cases for a healthy, romantic relationship. However, some people get along fine without it. And, again. People fall in love without having sex as well, but would you also like to make an analogous argument that gay people aren't gay until they fucked some of the same sex? Oooh, that will ruffle some feathers.


No, because there are sexual inclinations there before sex takes place. What people have been arguing is that there's a void of sexuality and sexual want until some bond is met. That's what makes no sense and hasn't been observed anywhere in mammals before. 



> Helen Fisher, I know, has research that there are brain structures related to mate selection and sexual attraction and there are separate, independently operating brain structures related to pair bonding and romantic attraction. These things work independently from each other but they can influence each other.
> 
> In the case of the "demisexual", one doesn't become activated until the other one does.
> 
> ...


I'm not invalidating anyone's feelings. People go about things in a way that's tailored to them, but that doesn't mean that there's a sect in nature for each and every little thing that separates us. That's not human nature.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

android654 said:


> That would be proving a negative, which can not be done. That's why I've been asking for some science or data to back it up, but no one has anything.


I am sorry I don't have links to the different mechanisms besides sex that release pair bonding chemicals, but I am not the kind of person to make bullshit up and I know've seen it somewhere. However, you have yet to present data to disprove anything. Call it an impasse? Though... I think I found something for you...



> No, because there are sexual inclinations there before sex takes place. What people have been arguing is that there's a void of sexuality and sexual want until some bond is met. That's what makes no sense and hasn't been observed anywhere in mammals before.


I found this: 





At one point, Helen Fisher talks briefly about romantic attraction in animals. She doesn't delve into the science of it, so it's probably not good enough for you. However, she certainly seems more knowledgable than the lot of us.

When I found that, I found this: 





This talks about oxytocin, which is a great influence of matters of love and sex, in a context that has nothing to do with love and sex. Hmmm. I think that shows bonds can be formed outside sex but possible those bonds influence the desire to have sex with a certain someone. It would make sense that when a bond is formed that the people in question become desirable to each other.



> I'm not invalidating anyone's feelings. People go about things in a way that's tailored to them, but that doesn't mean that there's a sect in nature for each and every little thing that separates us. That's not human nature.


You're right. It's actually a mechanical design that creates this "demisexual" phenomenon. No, no. That's stupid. It's more intelligent to say that you're right because humans aren't a part of nature. We're outside of it. 

Define nature. Because as far as I am concerned anything we do is nature because we are nature. We are animals, organisms. Our brains respond to the environment by means of chemicals, like many other animals. Yes. We have more complex brains, but doesn't mean we are above nature. We're just have more of a range of reaction to things. Even we decide to "suppress an urge" we do so based upon an cost-benefit analysis that is driven by our brain chemicals that respond rather automatically to the world around us much like instinctual drives do.

That might be where the real contention is, and if so... that doesn't actually belong in this thread.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

saintless said:


> I am sorry I don't have links to the different mechanisms besides sex that release pair bonding chemicals, but I am not the kind of person to make bullshit up and I know've seen it somewhere. However, you have yet to present data to disprove anything. Call it an impasse? Though... I think I found something for you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It seems clear to me it is designed to respond to good sex, not good poetry. Arguments found at the beginning of the thread.
Also, Mr Nobleheart is the one who started with ungrounded and highly unlikely assertions concerning (brain)chemicals, also very selective whatever seems to serve the cause. Unfortunately it backfired. I had advised to leave the chemicals out of it. He has not given any support for any of his assumptions but likes to use Ad Hominem instead apparently. Macho talk. (but not impressed no) 

I have nothing against people who identify with demisexuality. The Ad Hominem and the sheer amount of text here and in the other thread leave me with the impression that this is a very personal thing. I don't think he is interested in paying demisexuals a service or is even listening to what are in my view very reasonable arguments. 

Whatever. I'm outta here. Ciao.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

saintless said:


> @_Perhaps_ - Explain something to me.
> 
> You say you don't understand how how this is an "orientation unto itself". Yet, I think I've seen you agree on the concept. (There's too many posts in this thread to find the exact post.)


Yes. Requiring an emotional attachment/bond/whathaveyou before one experiences sexual attraction makes perfect sense to me. At no point did I argue against this (not saying that's what you mean, but some people have implied this is the case and I question whether my posts are actually being read at this point...)



> Okay. So, maybe it is not an orientation, but it is a very real phenomena that can be gauged and qualified by varying degrees albeit those degrees are not fixed for every situation. Therefore what this scale is attempting to do, is find a manner to express in which people specifically experience their attraction for others because for god's sake that is how we ultimately communicate with each other.


That is fine. Not something I personally would have a use for, but as I said to @kaleidoscope, I can see the merits of such a distinction. 

I'm not sure what you wanted me to explain, exactly, but I'm pretty much done with this thread so if you want to continue the discussion, shoot me a PM.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

android654 said:


> That would be proving a negative, which can not be done. That's why I've been asking for some science or data to back it up, but no one has anything.


Ah, the logical fallacy of Schrodinger - "If the existence of something can't be proven, then it *doesn't* exist". This mentality explains why you're so insistent upon your stance. As long as you can disregard proof, there is no proof, and without proof you assume that something cannot exist. 

Schrodinger's cat does not stop existing. It stops being a positive or negative variable the moment its existence cannot be proven. To assume otherwise is simply foolish, and would lead to a dead cat in a box if someone sat on that box. North America did in fact exist before anyone could prove it. "If the existence of something can't be proven, then it *may or may not* exist".



android654 said:


> No, because there are sexual inclinations there before sex takes place. What people have been arguing is that there's a void of sexuality and sexual want until some bond is met. That's what makes no sense and hasn't been observed anywhere in mammals before.


"Tell me Fido, how did you* feel *about the other dogs you've mated with_ before_ you mated with them?"

*Fido contemplates* "Woof, ruuf, ruuf, wuff. Rowowowrororuf."



android654 said:


> I'm not invalidating anyone's feelings. People go about things in a way that's tailored to them, but that doesn't mean that there's a sect in nature for each and every little thing that separates us. That's not human nature.


The argument is that there are two mechanisms in brain chemistry being discussed. One mechanism is for choosing a mate. The other mechanism is for pair bonding. If you're going to refute that these mechanisms exist after evidence has been provided, then you're validating my statement about using the logical fallacy of Schrodinger to try to win an argument based on proving something does not exist. 

However, if you can acknowledge this, the only thing left up to debate is whether or not all people use those two systems in conjunction the same way. There is no data to prove or disprove anyone's _opinion_ on this subject other than _personal accounts_, and the highly likely possibility that not everyone's mind has the same preferences, otherwise we wouldn't have a forum devoted to the differences in personality.

By simple nature of the fact that these mechanisms are distinct, it is highly likely that some of us put the pair bond mechanisms ahead of the choice of mate mechanisms in our preferences. This could be a subconscious choice or it could simply be a biological chain reaction caused by the pair bond chemicals needing to be active before the choice of mate system activates in us. Whatever the reason, it's not a conscious choice by any of of recollections.



mimesis said:


> Mr Nobleheart


You've just proven you haven't read my posts, and are making assumptions about what I meant.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

This seems so appropriate for some reason.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> Okay, I think this will clear it up. I found a photograph of a demisexual - proving they exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is me with my mommy when I was born.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

josue0098 said:


> This is me with my mommy when I was born.


D'awwww~

This is me and my demisexual friends at a party, munching on some chips.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> D'awwww~
> 
> This is me and my demisexual friends at a party, munching on some chips.












That's me trying to have sex with a girl because I found her attractive, and so that means we had sex, or at least I tried. She didn't find me attractive and was therefore incapable of engaging in sexual acts.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

This is my last boyfriend trying to friend zone me once I developed attraction to him, and clearly had to have sex with him.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Little known fact: The demisexual was created by Steve Jobs.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

Promethea said:


> I really don't get why some people are so obviously threatened by the fact that some people in fact experience only/or primarily secondary physical attraction.. its like they think their penises are going to get cut off if people collectively agree that this is in fact a phenomena.
> 
> I have wondered about it a lot.. idk.. maybe it makes them feel ashamed, or like they aren't as evolved or something. They tend to want to think its a moral choice for some reason - which to me suggests perhaps they feel some subconscious guilt.
> 
> ...



I've never thought of it like that, however, now that you've brought it up, I think you could be quite right. I think some people are a little bit ashamed of themselves regarding sexual behavior. No, I don't mean they are racked with guilt day in and day out, but I think a part of them feels it. And I find that people saying that "No, I don't experience primary sexual attraction" bothers them because it sounds almost "superior" to "Wow that person is hot, I'd love to have sex with them". I think that in this sex driven culture we live in a lot of people like to ignore any negative feelings they may have about their sexual decisions simply because it is easy. Everyone is told they should be enjoying and if they feel anything bad then something is wrong with them in some way. It reminds me of the people who will openly boast, brag, recount vivid details of sexual encounters to anyone who will listen but when the "how many people have you had sexual encounters with?" question is raised it all of a sudden crickets. I've seen it happen with men and women, though more with women. One could say that it is an invasive question, and they'd be right, but somehow I don't feel as though Im being invasive with a person who already has that "veil" of openness about it. 

the idea of demisexuality existing pisses a lot of people and I think its because they don't want you're behavior to be superior to theirs. Which, I find hilarious considering that they are the ones adding value to sexual behavior. I've never said I was better than someone who was primarily sexual, but when I'd research demisexuality and read other websites and threads about it, I can't tell you how many people under the sexual umbrella who be bleating "you just think you're views are better than others" when in reality it was them who thought that.


I'll stop rambling now.:tongue:


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

From my understanding, there's more of an expectation for demisexuality in cultures that are more passive in nature. For example, Japanese society seems to laud the idea of becoming 'friends first' before making any strong sexual overtures. I've posed the question to several friends I know living there, and they say that many of the couples they've met were close friends in high school or college before they became sexually involved (often marrying first). My own parents were also close friends in high school, and I believe a close approximation of their relationship in fiction would be the characters of Taiga and Ryuji from Toradora. Neither had casual sex with anyone, and it seems to be uncommon in passive cultures as well.

Demisexuals are no better or worse than anyone else. I've seen plenty of demisexual and heterosexual couples break up after some time for some reason or another. Orientation can't stop all the issues that tend to arise in relationships. But it definitely seems like demisexuals take an even bigger risk, considering their emotional attachments. However, they're less threatening to full-fledged sexuals; heartbreak is less likely to spread than STDs.


----------



## whispers_the_wind (Aug 30, 2012)

I think one of the issues here might be the illusion of people having made a conscious choice to be demisexual/hetero-/****-/bi-/whatever-sexual. Deciding whether or not to act on something=choice. Not having anything to decide to act upon=no choice to be made, except maybe acting in spite of it, which in this case doesn't make much sense. 

I agree with the point @Promethea and @Chipps made about some sort of shame coming up when people with otherwise healthy sex lives talk to someone who apparently has a different approach to it. Maybe we put ourselves above the rest of nature in so many other ways it feels shameful to admit that we are still affected by the instinct to mate.

Here, I think, is the crux of the matter; it's tough to imagine feeling something, when the opposite of it is so ingrained in you that you can't even explain why/since when/how you feel it. It just is. It's important to realize the other side is just as perplexed by your view as you are by theirs. I had no idea people actually meant it seriously when they said some random person was hot and they wouldn't mind "tapping that". From my point of view, it makes no sense. I can see when someone has attractive features, I just have no idea why that might make someone want to get intimate. There's a disconnection for me there that only disappears when certain other connections are solid enough. There is no silent judgement or holier than thou attitude being passed on, just another different view.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

I never would have considered the assumption that sexuals feel shame about being sexuals. It seems like the whole world runs on sexuals' sensibilities, and being a demisexual has caused me a long list of problems. I've never been under the impression that being a demisexual makes me better than anyone else. I've only recently decided to stand up and say "This is the way I am, and there is nothing wrong with me" because for most of my life, I've felt very much out of step with the majority of the people I've known. I also feel like sexuals have a much easier time with love and relationships. They have more people to choose from who get their approach, and their approach is quick and efficient. If they're attracted, they can quickly find out if the person they're attracted to reciprocates. Once this is established then they can figure out if they're able to pair bond. If not, rinse, repeat. For demisexuals, we have to make a long term investment before we can even begin the process of finding out if it could work.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I still don't understand why people seem to think that sexual attraction is the only determining factor in whether one can engage in sexual acts or not. I also don't understand why people seem to think that when someone experiences sexual attraction, it means they had/will have sex... I'm baffled as well by the bringing up of "choice" and "morality" in this thread. Talk about projection...

EDIT: Oh, and LOL to the person who was saying demisexuals were just virgins who didn't have the experience to understand sexual attraction. It's funny, how YOU don't understand sexual attraction. I'm pretty sure many virgins understand it better than you do.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

whispers_the_wind said:


> I had no idea people actually meant it seriously when they said some random person was hot and they wouldn't mind "tapping that". From my point of view, it makes no sense. I can see when someone has attractive features, I just have no idea why that might make someone want to get intimate. There's a disconnection for me there that only disappears when certain other connections are solid enough. There is no silent judgement or holier than thou attitude being passed on, just another different view.


This :laughing: I feel dumb saying this, but I used to think people thought the way I did, that they admired people they didn't know physically without really experiencing _any _arousal. I eventually realized that people actually MEANT IT when they said they wanted to fuck an actor's brains out - but it still baffles me to this day. I agree, sometimes thinking of something different than what comes so naturally to you can be impossible.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Apparently, I'm not alone in this idea.


----------



## Lorena Coliban (Mar 25, 2012)

Great post! And i'm defff a 3!! In my case, even if there is pheromone attraction i never act on it, untill i get to know/befriend the person and know that the feelings are mutual.


----------



## Christie42476 (May 25, 2012)

I'm a 2. Sexual attraction comes before pair bonding, but I won't act on it unless and until there's an emotional bond. 

And it's not a moral issue or me being repressed or anything else I've heard by those in my life who are zeroes to explain why people like me are not like them. I'm kind of the reverse of the "I really wanted to but felt like I wasn't allowed by society/my family/my religion/etc" type. I felt obligated to earlier in a relationshp than I was ready rather than prohibited, and I found the whole thing dissatisfying and repulsive because of that. I eventually had to accept that being lectured by those who are different and think I _must _secretlybe the same as they are, prompting them to try to "correct" me for my own good, was just something I was going to have to endure but resist.

It was the feeling that I was defective in some way that saw me allowing myself to be pressured briefly in my younger years, to my cost. I never had sex outside of a relationship -- the idea of sex with someone I don't (or barely) know or someone I don't feel at least some affection for isn't just disinteresting to me but literally repulsive -- but, as I said in the previous paragraph, I did cave in to the pressure in my relationships before I was ready. In truth, I never would have been ready in those relationships because I wasn't emotionally connecting with them the way I needed, which was where my reluctance came from. Something I didn't really understand well back then, and which saw some of my closer friends and a close family member mocking me for, prompting me to do what they all said was "normal". It made me so physically sick to remember it that I actually got to a point where I don't remember any of the details of my first time like you're "supposed to", having ruthlessly erased it from my memory. I remember who he was, how long we were together, and how old I was, but the details of it are gone. The same goes for every other time he and I were together, as well as the two relationships that followed before I met my (almost) ex-husband. 

Good riddance to those memories. I do not mourn their loss.

If I find someone sexually attractive but have an insufficient emotional bond with him, I won't enjoy sex with him, nor will I feel all that great afterward. This is a lesson I learned the hard way, but learned it I did. The sexual and the emotional are inextricably linked for me -- it's as simple as that. As for why, I don't know. It's the way I am, the way I've always been, and the way I'll always be. I've long since tired of defending or explaining it to the people in my life. I've never thought it made me better than anyone, but, for a while, I let myself be convinced that it made me inferior in some way. I don't believe that any longer. It just is, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The irony for me is that, though most of my friends are flat-out zeroes on the "Nobleheart scale" and I feel no prejudice towards them for it -- I truly don't think less of them for it at all, as I'm a be-true-to-yourself-as-long-as-you're-not-harming-anyone-else kind of person -- a couple of them do express a kind of condescension towards me because of it. It's not malicious, but it's definitely there. It's as if, from their perspective, needing that emotional bond makes me less mature, more naive, and less liberated than they are. I call it irony because it was the act of defying that pressure so that I could be true to that part of my nature that actually spurred my maturity, wisened me up, and liberated me.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

I wonder if demisexuality is more likely to create "success". Many statistics will imply that people who wait until later in life to have sex, as well as people who wait until later in life to get married and start a family, are more likely to be successful in life (which demisexuals tend to do by nature of the way we are wired). 

This makes me wonder if sexuals struggle with a conflict between their sexual urges and the things in life that are sought after as keys to "success" that seem to be in conflict with those urges, such as education, focusing on building a career, etc. - and is perhaps a source of the reaction that some of the sexuals in this thread have had? Because, honestly, that reaction really did take me by surprise.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

I am 24 and still a virgin, and I have only just had someone come into my life who I would seriously consider having sex with.
The thing is, I have yet to meet him in person.
But we have this amazing connection, one which I have never felt with anyone before, and it is that which makes me have the desire to have sex with this person.

The funny thing is, I have identified with asexuality since I first heard about it, and yet I knew I wasn't asexual.

Like, I certainly have a sex drive. But the idea of having my having sex with someone I did not have an emotional connection with is just, almost repulsive. 

I certainly have found that, what turns me on, is more watching (or more often reading) a sexual experience between a deeply emotionally connected couple, not what is usually called porn.

So, maybe I am demisexual.

I have had a lot of labels added to my sexuality.

I have come to the conclusion, you can't label my sexuality. It just is what it is.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> I wonder if demisexuality is more likely to create "success". Many statistics will imply that people who wait until later in life to have sex, as well as people who wait until later in life to get married and start a family, are more likely to be successful in life (which demisexuals tend to do by nature of the way we are wired).
> 
> This makes me wonder if sexuals struggle with a conflict between their sexual urges and the things in life that are sought after as keys to "success" that seem to be in conflict with those urges, such as education, focusing on building a career, etc. - and is perhaps a source of the reaction that some of the sexuals in this thread have had? Because, honestly, that reaction really did take me by surprise.




I honestly have found, and the person I mentioned in above post agrees, that people who are sexually liberal have a tendency to try to make people who have made the choice to not be so liberal bad for their choice. 

Not all of them, but many seem to think we are just 'giving. in' to brain washing of waiting until marriage, and are not able to accept that our personal decisions are our own personal decisions. 

My partner has told me the he doesn't believe in meaningless sex, so I guess that means he is on the demisexual scale too. 

I respect other people's decisions to do what they like with their body, I wish they would respect mine likewise. 

I am not respressing anything in. myself by not having had sex yet, and to just go our today and have sex with someone I had no connection with, that would be somehow denying who I am.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Dewymorning said:


> My partner has told me the he doesn't believe in meaningless sex, so I guess that means he is on the demisexual scale too.


I wonder, though, if there is a distinct difference between holding the philosophy that all sex should have "meaning" and feeling the lack of physical desire until there is "meaning" present or moreover an emotional bond. I mean there could be a person with a high sex drive, but is comfortable with self pleasure because they rather have an intimate moment with someone they care about rather than a stranger. A common human phenomenon? Probably not, but it seems perfectly viable to me. 

That, of course, boils then entire argument down to a very physiological-psychological response. (Both are included given they generally influence each other with a wonderful back-and-forth dynamic.) Demisexuality, as already claimed, is not a social phenomenon or construct but rather something biological. It's predetermined in many regards. 

I haven't actually thought about this though until five minutes ago, and I remember having other realizations a while back, but I am too pressed for time to consult my notes.
I do take notes of shit.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Dewymorning said:


> My partner has told me the he doesn't believe in meaningless sex, so I guess that means he is on the demisexual scale too.


Not necessarily. Demisexuality has to do with how he would experience sexual attraction. He can be attracted, but not act upon it unless other criteria are met. A demisexual would not feel sexually attracted until after a bond is formed.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

That leads me to a question - what is the stance of most demisexuals on maturbation?


Also, on celebrity culture, I have at different points gotten into a small part of celebrity following, especially of Alex Kingston, and a lot of people who are in these followings express a desire to have sex with the celebrity. I always felt disconnected from these thoughts. I was like, I don't want to have sex with them, I just want to meet them and be their friend and have deep philosophical discussions about... "


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Dewymorning said:


> That leads me to a question - what is the stance of most demisexuals on maturbation?


I do it sometimes... :blushed:

I don't see what this has to do with anything, though...


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

SisOfNight said:


> I personally have always had a problem to differentiate Sexual Attraction from Sexual Drive, and Sexual Attraction from Aesthetic Attraction. When I find someone physically attractive, hence aesthetically attractive, does that mean I am actually sexually attracted to them? However, I do not feel the "drive" to want to be sexually intimate with them. So, regarding my Sexual Drive I am ought to be a Demisexual (3 or even 4), but regarding my "Sexual" Attraction a Sexual (2)?


If you find someone aesthetically attractive, but do not want to be sexually intimate with them, then no, you're not sexually attracted.

Being sexually aroused does not require that you be sexually attracted to anyone. Masturbation is a perfectly acceptable intention all by itself.

Many demisexuals find people that they are aesthetically attracted to also romantically attractive. This doesn't include a sexual attraction for us, but simply a desire to be closer to that person romantically.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Interesting, but I do take issue with the way demisexual is defined here -



> My 10% estimate is for 'textbook' demisexuals who are not interested in sex with people they do not have a mental, emotional, or otherwise friendship connection with.


It's not about interest, it's about whether or not you can experience physical attraction to someone. If you only have interest in emotional/meaningful/whatever sex, but still can feel attracted to someone on looks alone, then you aren't demisexual.

It really isn't practical to describe us by what we do feel attracted to; instead, view us by what we can't do. Demisexuality describes an inability to feel primary sexual attraction (i.e. attraction to physical traits alone), not only desiring sex after an emotional bond is formed. In fact - similar to asexuals - it is entirely possible for a demi to seek out and enjoy casual sex with others, even if there is no attraction present. 

The grey-A definition is the muddy, 50% line between sexuals and asexuals, not demisexuality - demi is more of a side branch.

That said, I do agree it's more of a scale. I say this as someone who is demisexual, but leans closer to being asexual than non. On your scale, I'd say I'm 4, maybe 5.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> Interesting, but I do take issue with the way demisexual is defined here -
> 
> It's not about interest, it's about whether or not you can experience physical attraction to someone. If you only have interest in emotional/meaningful/whatever sex, but still can feel attracted to someone on looks alone, then you aren't demisexual.


Interesting, but I do take issue with the way demisexual is defined here -

Aesthetic attraction (physical attraction) is not the same as sexual attraction (wanting to engage in the physical act of sex with someone). These overlap in most people, but they are distinct. Demisexuality is not exclusive to aesthetic attraction.

Also, your attempt at creating an inverse of my statement was not actually accurate. 

_"not interested in sex with people they do not have a mental, emotional, or otherwise friendship connection with" _

does not equal

_"only have interest in emotional/meaningful/whatever sex"_



Falling Leaves said:


> That said, I do agree it's more of a scale. I say this as someone who is demisexual, but leans closer to being asexual than non. On your scale, I'd say I'm 4, *maybe 5*.


This might be why your definition of demisexuality differs from mine.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Nobleheart said:


> Interesting, but I do take issue with the way demisexual is defined here -
> 
> Aesthetic attraction (physical attraction) is not the same as sexual attraction (wanting to engage in the physical act of sex with someone). These overlap in most people, but they are distinct. Demisexuality is not exclusive to aesthetic attraction.


I think the term you're using for aesthetic sexual attraction is what I would call primary sexual attraction -

Primary vs. secondary sexual attraction model - AVENwiki

Aesthetic attraction is an intrinsic part of sexual attraction - we aren't just sexually attracted to someone because they look good, or because we have a deep emotional, connection. It's usually a melting pot of factors, one of which is how someone appeals to us on an aesthetic level. 



> Also, your attempt at creating an inverse of my statement was not actually accurate.
> 
> _"not interested in sex with people they do not have a mental, emotional, or otherwise friendship connection with" _
> 
> ...


Not really - my post addresses this my pointing out that a demisexual can want and enjoy casual sex, same as an asexual can. Similarly, a person not be interested in non-emotional sex (to use your terminology) and still feel sexual attraction to someone on the basis of looks alone - by your definition, this would make them demisexuals, even though they experience primary sexual attraction. 

Demisexuality is the inability to feel sexual attraction on the basis of physical appearance, instead needing to form an emotional bond first. It does not equate to a lack of interest in sex with people they do not have a mental, emotional, or otherwise friendship connection with (although, that is a common byproduct). 

It's not a particularly clean definition to be honest.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> It's not a particularly clean definition to be honest.


The bane of INTPs everywhere. 

Let's bicker over how we agree.

;-)


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Nobleheart said:


> The bane of INTPs everywhere.
> 
> Let's bicker over how we agree.
> 
> ;-)


Hahah, I am not trying to be INTP-anal (although, that probably is an aspect of it), it's moreso when you muddy the line between demisexuals and people who simply chose not to engage in casual sex, it feeds into the following -

"Demisexuality is a choice"
"Demisexuals are just people who use their sexuality prudishly look down on promiscuous behavior"
"Demisexuals are just straight people who want the special attention gays get" 
etcetcetc

Everything else aside, I agree that we should view it as a scale, not as an all-or-nothing response.


----------



## SisOfNight (Oct 31, 2013)

All of this terminology only confuses me. By several standards I could either be a sexual or demisexual.
I leave it at that. If somebody acts me for my orientation I will only say that it is complicated, or rather that I most often do not want to get physical (too soon). 
:/


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> We can enjoy sex, but what we love is the connection that sex can provide.
> 
> You're weighing in on something you don't seem to understand, and refuting the definition of someone who is the subject of the definition. This is like straight people telling gay people it's a choice.


No, it's very different. It seems more like someone gay telling someone straight, that gay only like oral.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Aaaand scene.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> when you muddy the line between demisexuals and people who simply chose not to engage in casual sex





Falling Leaves said:


> Everything else aside, I agree that we should view it as a scale, not as an all-or-nothing response.


Scales, by nature of having polar conditions at opposing ends, muddy definitions. Seems like you're trying to entertain a plurality, but your Ti won't let you. ;-) Embrace the Shadow Ni. Everything fits here, even when it "shouldn't". 



Falling Leaves said:


> it feeds into the following -
> 
> "Demisexuality is a choice"


None of the orientations on the scale proposed are a "choice" any more than being straight, bi, or gay (aka Kinsey Scale). If people assume otherwise, they're simply projecting. Granted, the primary issue people on the asexual spectrum are currently battling is simple validation from the sexuals who can't wrap their heads around not being horny all the time and wanting to sex strangers.



Falling Leaves said:


> "Demisexuals are just people who use their sexuality prudishly look down on promiscuous behavior"


Again, nothing in the spectrum implies this. Anyone who assumes otherwise is projecting their own issues onto people who simply don't share them. I've never really understood this phenomena. I can say "I don't experience primary sexual attraction", and there is a knee jerk response of "STOP SLUT SHAMING ME!" Maybe the sexual instinct I don't have includes being self conscious about having it? Maybe because they constantly want to sex strangers but are always forcing themselves not to, they assume that anyone who claims they don't want sex is lying... like they are when forcing themselves to not act on their sexual impulses? maybe it makes them neurotic and resentful of people who don't wrestle with it? 



Falling Leaves said:


> "Demisexuals are just straight people who want the special attention gays get"
> etcetcetc


If by attention, they mean validation and acceptance to simply be who we are without people assuming we shouldn't or trying to force us into expectations we can't meet, then yeah actually a lot of us do. ;-)


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Nobleheart said:


> Scales, by nature of having polar conditions at opposing ends, muddy definitions. Seems like you're trying to entertain a plurality, but your Ti won't let you. ;-) Embrace the Shadow Ni. Everything fits here, even when it "shouldn't".


Except there is no scale between demis and sexuals who only have 'emotional' sex. There is a very clean, clear line between the two groups - the ability (or lack thereof) to feel sexual attraction on physical traits alone. When you do not draw this line, people who abstain from casual sex (but experience primary sexual attraction) are incorrectly branded as demisexual. 



> None of the orientations on the scale proposed are a "choice" any more than being straight, bi, or gay (aka Kinsey Scale). If people assume otherwise, they're simply projecting. Granted, the primary issue people on the asexual spectrum are currently battling is simple validation from the sexuals who can't wrap their heads around not being horny all the time and wanting to sex strangers.


I never claimed that your scale implicitly said so. 

Definitions which say that demisexuality is about wanting or interest in something *imply* that it's a result of choice. 

Definitions which say demisexuality is about only wanting sex with people you connect with *imply* that it stems from a prudish view (i.e. sex built about love and trust good, casual sex bad).

Definitions which say demisexuality is about only desiring "emotional" sex *imply* that we're no different from sexuals who want the same thing, hence we must be the same and are simply conjuring a sexuality out of thin air to feel special. 



> Again, nothing in the spectrum implies this. Anyone who assumes otherwise is projecting their own issues onto people who simply don't share them. I've never really understood this phenomena. I can say "I don't experience primary sexual attraction", and there is a knee jerk response of "STOP SLUT SHAMING ME!" Maybe the sexual instinct I don't have includes being self conscious about having it? Maybe because they constantly want to sex strangers but are always forcing themselves not to, they assume that anyone who claims they don't want sex is lying... like they are when forcing themselves to not act on their sexual impulses? maybe it makes them neurotic and resentful of people who don't wrestle with it?


To summarize what you said there, people who think demisexuality is about sex-shaming are ignorant morons. I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. 



> If by attention, they mean validation and acceptance to simply be who we are without people assuming we shouldn't or trying to force us into expectations we can't meet, then yeah actually a lot of us do. ;-)


No, what they mean is we're insanely jealous of all the special attention gays get for being victimized. It really is a nasty perception. 

That said, I would agree with the above.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

Your scale seems to be based on the physical attraction aspect of sexuality and asexuality, but I think another big factor is people's choice whether or not to act on their sexual desires. There's probably a lot of people who would consider themselves definitely sexual and feel sexually attracted to a lot of people, but they may also feel like actually having sex with the person isn't worth whatever risk (rejection, STDs, pregnancy, becoming emotionally attached when the other person isn't, etc.).


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

I find this thread scary. And this whole concept...


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

Everyone's gotta have their Sleep Number...


----------



## Watch Key Phone (Mar 29, 2013)

EccentricSiren said:


> Your scale seems to be based on the physical attraction aspect of sexuality and asexuality, but I think another big factor is people's choice whether or not to act on their sexual desires. There's probably a lot of people who would consider themselves definitely sexual and feel sexually attracted to a lot of people, but they may also feel like actually having sex with the person isn't worth whatever risk (rejection, STDs, pregnancy, becoming emotionally attached when the other person isn't, etc.).


Physical attraction is how sexuality is defined. In this society, we do not give orientation labels based on behaviour, only on attraction. A celibate homosexual is still homosexual - a demisexual who is also a sex worker is still demisexual - etc.



Kysinor said:


> I find this thread scary. And this whole concept...


Why?


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

Watch Key Phone said:


> Why?


I haven't read the thread but I suppose I don't understand what "demisexual" really connotes.


----------



## Watch Key Phone (Mar 29, 2013)

Kysinor said:


> I haven't read the thread but I suppose I don't understand what "demisexual" really connotes.


Still not sure why that would scare you. But if you want a definition: demisexual means a person who only ever experiences sexual attraction to people who they have already formed some kind of emotional attachment to. It's pretty simple really.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Kysinor said:


> I haven't read the thread but I suppose I don't understand what "demisexual" really connotes.


A demisexual is someone who doesn't experience primary sexual attraction (and therefore doesn't have a frame of reference for the expectations that go along with it), but can experience secondary sexual attraction. 

Primary sexual attraction is generally understood to be pheromone based instinctive drive to want to have sex with another person which develops a pair bond relationship. This involves a lot of base level urgent drives to sex another specific person. This is the 'thrilling' part of the relationship when people are charged to have a lot of wild sex and fend off any rivals. The sex creates elevated levels of oxytocin and vasopressin, which causes the couple to form a deeper connection. 

Secondary sexual attraction is generally assumed to be based on the fact that the pair bond changes the way the hormones operate in order to maintain a relationship. Sex becomes an act of relationship reassurance, rather than an urgent conquest, which is designed to prevent the partners from being able to have primary attraction to other partners. This is the 'boring' part of the relationship. Sex drives begin to fade, and the couple begins to act like friends.

Demisexuals don't experience primary sexual attraction. They can experience romantic attraction, aesthetic attraction, and even a desire to be physically affectionate with another person, but more often than not, what a demisexual experiences is a desire to be closer to another person on a friend level. Only after a demisexual creates elevated levels of oxytocin and vasopressin by becoming close to another person can they unlock their secondary sexual attraction, at which point they behave like "normal couples" once the initial 'rush' wears off.

This puts demisexuals out of step with other orientations because of the way they arrive at secondary sexual attraction plants them in "the friend zone" with most potential partners, making it difficult for demisexuals to find love and lasting relationships.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Nobleheart said:


> A demisexual is someone who doesn't experience primary sexual attraction (and therefore doesn't have a frame of reference for the expectations that go along with it), but can experience secondary sexual attraction.
> 
> Primary sexual attraction is generally understood to be pheromone based instinctive drive to want to have sex with another person which develops a pair bond relationship. This involves a lot of base level urgent drives to sex another specific person. This is the 'thrilling' part of the relationship when people are charged to have a lot of wild sex and fend off any rivals. The sex creates elevated levels of oxytocin and vasopressin, which causes the couple to form a deeper connection.
> 
> ...


holy shit.

i need to read this some more, but I think this is me. I have never had a huge rush to sex someone. Never lost control of my emotions early in a relationship.
I do indeed need to like them in order to have sex, or at least enjoyable sex. I do like most women, but I have a need to sort of like them. 
I can't / won't sex someone I dislike no matter how pretty / sexy they are.
And I believe ladies get much prettier as I learn more about them.

Could this be why I have been accused of less passionate early in a relationship? Is this part of being an NT?
hmmmm..................


----------



## BlissfulDreams (Dec 25, 2009)

I would consider myself a 3-4 on this scale. I still find people attractive, but I don't experience primary sexual attraction. I consider myself to be mostly asexual because there have only been a handful of times when I have been sexually attracted to someone and I primarily enjoy sex for the intimacy.


----------

