# Demisexuals



## sockratees (Apr 7, 2015)

i identify as a demi


i need to find someone aesthetically attractive before i can form sexual desire. being a demisexual does not mean aesthetics are not important/relevant.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> Sexual attraction ≠ Sexual behaviour


No, but at some point you just have to look at the facts and say that maybe there is something else at play. I would like to see a poll about what percent of both men and women identify as either asexual or demisexual. It sure seems to me that demisexuals are predominantly women and I don't think it's a stretch to say some of these people are just using the label to sound more morally upright. If I see a woman who has "demisexual" in her profile, but then she is on OKC and Tinder hooking up with random guys I'm going to call bull shit on that (which I have seen and responded accordingly). If you look up the word on Google half the links are people saying they don't exist or arguments about why they DO exist. It's clearly not just me who considers this a little crazy. I'd say, "sexually repressed" is a more correct term. Plus "demi" people seem to miss the fact that pretty much every normal person in existence weighs emotional connections into sexual attraction. It's normal not the want to have sex with someone you hate no matter how physically attractive they are and to want to have sex with someone you have a strong emotional connection to even if they aren't that physically attractive. This isn't being "demi", it's being a normal human being.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> No, but at some point you just have to look at the facts and say that maybe there is something else at play. I would like to see a poll about what percent of both men and women identify as either asexual or demisexual. It sure seems to me that demisexuals are predominantly women and I don't think it's a stretch to say some of these people are just using the label to sound more morally upright. *If I see a woman who has "demisexual" in her profile, but then she is on OKC and Tinder hooking up with random guys I'm going to call bull shit on that (which I have seen and responded accordingly)*. If you look up the word on Google half the links are people saying they don't exist or arguments about why they DO exist. It's clearly not just me who considers this a little crazy. *Plus "demi" people seem to miss the fact that pretty much every normal person in existence weighs emotional connections into sexual attraction.
> 
> It's normal not the want to have sex with someone you hate no matter how physically attractive they are and to want to have sex with someone you have a strong emotional connection to even if they aren't that physically attractive. *This isn't being "demi", it's being a normal human being.


That's a hypothesis. Tinder makes sense but I know a lot of asexuals who use OKC to date and make friends. We're around 1% so a lot of us use internet dating to cast a wider net. Of course, there are always going to be uptight hipsters who like using labels for attention. And people who lack basic understanding of what sexual attraction supposed to be.

I know some people think that sexual attraction is "Ooo I want to hit that." Sometimes it is but yes, emotions and other factors tie into that too but deciding only to have sex or not under certain circumstances is not an orientation. That's called a behavioral preference. Normally, a sexual person experiences sexual attraction nut may not feel the desire to follow through it for several reasons. Demisexuals don't experience sexual attraction in the first place but they might have sex for several reasons.

I don't think demisexuality implies any of that. And a demi just posted that they need aesthetic attraction first. So it's the opposite of what you just said.

That's why orientation and behavior aren't always related. A heterosexual celibate monk or a priest is not an asexual. They experience sexual attraction but they control their behavior. 

If anyone thinks demi is slut shaming, then it's because their own insecurities towards being sexually active outside of a relationship.

The actual slut shaming is done by sexuals. I support non romantic sex.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

sockratees said:


> i identify as a demi
> 
> 
> i need to find someone aesthetically attractive before i can form sexual desire. being a demisexual does not mean aesthetics are not important/relevant.


Same goes for asexuals too. I was surprised to find out that a lot asexuals think really highly of aesthetic attraction. But that's just me reflecting my own experience on other asexuals. Aesthetic attraction is something I rarely experience and I don't care for it. I have very poor facial recognition and I can hardly tell the difference lol


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> I don't think demisexuality implies any of that. And a demi just posted that they need aesthetic attraction first. So it's the opposite of what you just said.


You do understand the statement they made is a little logically questionable right? It's essentially just saying that in order to be sexually attracted they need a person who is both physically attractive and emotionally available. That could just as easily be portrayed as a person with normal sexuality but very high standards. I mean, you can call it whatever you want, but it's starting to get into semantics here of just how much you want to divide people up into groups as opposed to putting them in a smaller number of more inclusive groups. I simply don't see how it's productive to have so many different words for normal sexual attraction that nobody ever made a big deal about before sites like Tumblr showed up.



Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> Same goes for asexuals too. I was surprised to find out that a lot asexuals think really highly of aesthetic attraction.


The logic behind this statement is even more questionable than the one concerning demisexuals. Unless you're saying they think hot people are just nice works of art but it doesn't get their dick hard any more than a nice landscape painting wood.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> You do understand the statement they made is a little logically questionable right?* It's essentially just saying that in order to be sexually attracted they need a person who is both physically attractive and emotionally available. *That could just as easily be portrayed as a person with normal sexuality but very high standards. I mean, you can call it whatever you want, but it's starting to get into semantics here of just how much you want to divide people up into groups as opposed to putting them in a smaller number of more inclusive groups. I simply don't see how it's productive to have so many different words for normal sexual attraction that nobody ever made a big deal about before sites like Tumblr showed up.
> 
> 
> *The logic behind this statement is even more questionable than the one concerning demisexuals. Unless you're saying they think hot people are just nice works of art but it doesn't get their dick hard any more than a nice landscape painting wood.*


I have to be a fool to believe that every sexual in this world needs to be deeply connected to someone for months and even years so one day they MIGHT find that person "hot and sexy". It's often the other way around like "Oooo, this person is kinda hot. That makes me wanna get to know them. Their personality is great too. I think I have a crush on them." Lots of times it goes straight from "they are hot" to "I have a crush on them." Then, they try to connect emotionally later. Sexual attraction is the primary key that makes sexuals want to bond with each other. Not the other way around.

That's why I only use aromantic asexual. Even that is pretentious enough for many. People tend to use labels more on the internet because we have profiles and whatnot. In real life not many people know my orientation. If someone asks, I'm not gonna lie but most people just assume I'm heterosexual by default.

Have you ever met anyone really good looking from the gender you're not sexually attracted to? Did your dick get hard? *grins*

People just want nice things I guess. I don't get aesthetic attraction so this is just my theory. Even if it's an object, people still want it to look nice.


----------



## sockratees (Apr 7, 2015)

leaving this here: Attraction - AVENwiki


----------



## sockratees (Apr 7, 2015)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> All the one's I've ever met were having more sex than the average "normal" sexual person.


sexual frequency doesn't indicate demisexuality. tons of people have sex for emotional validation or from pressure from their partners or from a feeling of obligation. a lot of the asexuals i know receive no physical enjoyment from sex with their partners, they do it because they are expected/feel obligated to do so to keep the relationship. in a world of sexuals, they have little choice, but they enjoy knowing they are pleasing someone they care about. 

the time frame a demisexual will begin to feel attraction often clashes with social protocol/expectation. sexuals often feel undesired if their partners block all of their sexual advances, so there is a lot of faking it involved. it's either that or basically remove yourself from the dating pool.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

LondonBaker said:


> Ooooooh Have always wanted to hear about the perspective of demisexuals *takes seat*


You can have mine.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you may be wishing for discrete categories again, I would say the definitions offer exemplars of attraction which I think some people would fit snuggly within the definition, but that many people do experience degree of romantic attraction doesn't invalidate the category in it's utility nor accuracy. 

I think you know a poll in itself wouldn't be be strong support even if it came out with the hypothesized results.

I think you're painting a lot of things merely out of speculation with an abundance of confidence that I think inappropriate to the assertions. Things like sexually repressed and putting it all down to fear of slut shaming seems more like you're manner of trying to accommodate the existence of such a conception to your limited conceptual framework of sexuality which I'm sure is quite extensive but not extensive enough it seems.
I could just as easily cite a narrative that if the hypothesized results of a poll were shown with more women being demi, that this is a result of a culture that doesn't emphasize emotional attachment in sexuality for men but largely physical.
You may not believe it but it's just as compelling as your own story and thus is the problem with such intuitions is that they don't really mean much so you should with hold strong assertions of such beliefs since you can't strongly support them.


----------



## Lady Isla (Feb 20, 2015)

I agree with my fellow rationalist @a1b2c3d4 that it's more likely just a different way of looking at one's sexuality. I'm interested in long-term meaningful relationships, but that just indicates a level of maturity on my part, not a change in my sexuality. That's how most people used to behave before the feminist sexual revolution. Being homosexual or heterosexual is far more an obvious biological difference in sexuality, scientifically speaking. You can often predict that from behavior in childhood. That said, I have nothing against all these labels. I just think it's overkill or subtypes maybe.


----------



## sockratees (Apr 7, 2015)

Lady Isla said:


> that just indicates a level of maturity on my part, not a *change in my sexuality*.


it's one thing to develop or "mature" into a frame of mind, it's quite another to have it be inherent to one's nature


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Lady Isla said:


> I agree with my fellow rationalist @_a1b2c3d4_ that it's more likely just a different way of looking at one's sexuality. I'm interested in long-term meaningful relationships, but that just indicates a level of maturity on my part, not a change in my sexuality. That's how most people used to behave before the feminist sexual revolution. Being homosexual or heterosexual is far more an obvious biological difference in sexuality, scientifically speaking. You can often predict that from behavior in childhood. That said, I have nothing against all these labels. I just think it's overkill or subtypes maybe.


It has nothing to do with maturity for demisexuals. It's just how they experience attraction. Attraction is something that can't be forced. It's just something you experience. 

I found out I'm demiromantic not that long ago. I've never had romantic crushes in my life. When I was a teenager, everyone around me had crushes and I asked myself so many times "why the hell is everyone around me so uninteresting?" I dated a few friends (of different genders) who pursued me. For a long time I thought romantic attraction was just complete bogus because no romantic could come up with a convincing definition. I became very emotionally close to someone last year and I began experiencing romantic attraction towards them. It was very unexpected. It wasn't a conscious choice or decision. 

It's easy to discard labels when your "labels" (Straight or gay is a label too) are too normalized to the point that you forget that they are indeed labels. We get identified as what? The other? I don't know if I'm straight or gay or bi or pan romantically. I'm experiencing romantic feelings for the first time in my life. He happens to be male. One person is not enough for me to figure out my orientation because I've never fallen for anyone else. I dated other genders so I have the potential to be interested in other genders. How am I supposed to describe myself? It's more complex than it seems.

*A lot of demis don't know their underlying orientation. When you can't find a word to describe yourself, you make up one.*


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Can we please not debate in here? Let's leave room for others to share their perspectives, without all the baiting and assuming mostly women are demisexuals please? Let's not make this into a gender war.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

sockratees said:


> i identify as a demi
> 
> 
> i need to find someone aesthetically attractive before i can form sexual desire. being a demisexual does not mean aesthetics are not important/relevant.



What definition of demisexual are you using? Because by the one I use, that is pretty much the opposite of being a demisexual.

A demisexual does not experience "primary" sexual attraction, which is what makes looks necessary for some people.

If the word cannot be used to weed out people who sexually desire people for their looks, it is useless. Please don't corrupt its meaning.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

snail said:


> What definition of demisexual are you using? Because by the one I use, that is pretty much the opposite of being a demisexual.
> 
> A demisexual does not experience "primary" sexual attraction, which is what makes looks necessary for some people.
> 
> If the word cannot be used to weed out people who sexually desire people for their looks, it is useless. Please don't corrupt its meaning.


That is affirming the consequent. Attraction based on looks is not necessarily sexual, and furthermore sexual attraction can be based on other things than looks (in fact that's part of the limitation of sexual attraction known as demisexuality.) This does not limit other forms of attraction e.g.:


Halcyon said:


> Sensory attraction, where you're attracted to the aesthetics of a person ("I _like_ that").
> 
> Romantic attraction, where you want a relationship with a person ("I wanna marry that").
> 
> And sexual attraction, where you experience lust for a person ("I wanna fuck that").


Although I don't buy the Sensory attraction part, since aesthetic pleasure is disinterested, and any interest of it is distinct from and parasitic on it. 
Also some observations I've made in another thread based on my own experience.
Also this thread is relevant.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

If that describes someone that's ok, but I'd strongly prefer it if people didn't decide to walk up to me and say so. The whole concept of not "being sexually attracted to someone" before having an emotional connection is way to close to "look at me, I'm not superficial". I don't see why someone would say that other than try to prove something to me and I don't need anyone to prove anything to me. I also don't like the way that these terms are becoming identities, I don't really want to hear people's sexual preferences upon meeting someone.
It would seem so, broadly you could be attracted to anything.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

'Demisexual' just sounds like a word for standard female sexual attraction. Why do we need all of these redundant terms for sexual preferences?


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Gore Motel said:


> 'Demisexual' just sounds like a word for standard female sexual attraction. Why do we need all of these redundant terms for sexual preferences?


Perhaps it sounds better for guy to describe his preference this way over saying he has "standard female sexual attraction"? :tongue:


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Gore Motel said:


> 'Demisexual' just sounds like a word for standard female sexual attraction. Why do we need all of these redundant terms for sexual preferences?


Though it may go past many if not men, I can smell all the fine distinctions on the behaviour of women, that would hint at any level of promiscuity. If you are not a demisexual man yourself, you can hardly tell any difference. I would suggest there is a genetic origin of this sixth sense:
Monogamy gene found in people - life - 01 September 2008 - New Scientist


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

SilverFalcon said:


> Perhaps it sounds better for guy to describe his preference this way over saying he has "standard female sexual attraction"? :tongue:


I think it'd be like creating a term for men who like to look at porn (needless).


----------



## sockratees (Apr 7, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> If that describes someone that's ok, but I'd strongly prefer it if people didn't decide to walk up to me and say so. The whole concept of not "being sexually attracted to someone" before having an emotional connection is way to close to "look at me, I'm not superficial". I don't see why someone would say that other than try to prove something to me and I don't need anyone to prove anything to me. I also don't like the way that these terms are becoming identities, I don't really want to hear people's sexual preferences upon meeting someone.
> It would seem so, broadly you could be attracted to anything.





AvenWiki said:


> "When describing demisexuality as an orientation to sexuals, sexuals often mistake it as an admirable choice rather than an innate orientation. Demisexuals are not choosing to abstain; they simply lack sexual attraction until a close relationship is formed."
> 
> Demisexual - AVENwiki


i don't see why so many sexuals get offended at this - this isn't about you! lol. it is * a lack of sexual attraction*, it has nothing to do with attempting to be "pure".


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

sockratees said:


> i don't see why so many sexuals get offended at this - this isn't about you! lol. it is * a lack of sexual attraction*, it has nothing to do with attempting to be "pure".


There's plenty of motive to calling yourself though which is what I'm trying to say. It's just like a forer effect, where you say "I'm this personality type because it makes me look good" when you aren't that. That's all I'm getting at, I guess you kind of missed the part where I complained about them trying tell me upon meeting them. For what reason would they tell me that? That just reduces my trust in that statement, what if they are only saying that to create a particular image? I don't address you by saying "I like females", then again I don't really need to because it says it on my profile and most people would assume that.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Euclid said:


> That is affirming the consequent. Attraction based on looks is not necessarily sexual, and furthermore sexual attraction can be based on other things than looks (in fact that's part of the limitation of sexual attraction known as demisexuality.) This does not limit other forms of attraction e.g.:


Looks-based sexual attraction is the opposite of demisexuality. A demisexual is defined as someone who does not experience "primary" sexual attraction, but who does experience "secondary" sexual attraction.

Primary sexual attraction is defined as sexual attraction based on information that is instantly available, such as appearance or smell. 

Secondary sexual attraction is defined as sexual attraction that develops over time based on relationship and connection.

Primary vs. secondary sexual attraction model - AVENwiki

This explains in detail why I am rejecting the idea that someone whose sexual attraction is dependent on information that is immediately available (such as aesthetic information) can be a demisexual. It runs counter to the very definition of the term.




When using these labels for anything meaningful, such as determining potential compatibility, it is necessary to use them appropriately.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

How can A sexual exist, yet not demi sexual?


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> There's plenty of motive to calling yourself though which is what I'm trying to say. It's just like a forer effect, where you say "I'm this personality type because it makes me look good" when you aren't that. That's all I'm getting at, I guess you kind of missed the part where I complained about them trying tell me upon meeting them. For what reason would they tell me that? That just reduces my trust in that statement, what if they are only saying that to create a particular image? I don't address you by saying "I like females", then again I don't really need to because it says it on my profile and most people would assume that.


If you read my post then, you would have realized that many demisexuals and demiromantics don't know which gender they like since we need to form an emotional connection first. Chances are a demi has only bonded with gender X but not gender Y, Z so they aren't sure they can be attracted to Y, Z. Or They have bonded with all genders but have yet to fall romantically for anyone.

People define their orientation by which gender they are attracted to. When someone is YET to experience that at all or in full capacity, it's not easy to say "I like females" or whatever. 

It's not a preference. It's not about morals. It's about attraction or lack thereof.

@sockratees you are right lol Sexuals always manage to make it about themselves. It never ends, does it?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> If you read my post then, you would have realized that many demisexuals and demiromantics don't know which gender they like since we need to form an emotional connection first. Chances are a demi has only bonded with gender X but not gender Y, Z so they aren't sure they can be attracted to Y, Z. Or They have bonded with all genders but have yet to fall romantically for anyone.
> 
> People define their orientation by which gender they are attracted to. When someone is YET to experience that at all or in full capacity, it's not easy to say "I like females" or whatever.
> 
> ...


Why would they bother telling me then?
You're trying to convince me that it is purely based on attraction in all cases but I doubt that because there would be no need to create an identity off of it that were so.


----------



## sockratees (Apr 7, 2015)

A sexual attraction is not an aesthetic attraction. Look at the link I posted on attraction definitions from aven.

Flowers are aesthetically attractive, that does mean one wishes to have sex with them.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

snail said:


> Looks-based sexual attraction is the opposite of demisexuality. A demisexual is defined as someone who does not experience "primary" sexual attraction, but who does experience "secondary" sexual attraction.
> 
> Primary sexual attraction is defined as sexual attraction based on information that is instantly available, such as appearance or smell.
> 
> ...


I think the original post was saying looks do matter like they do for a lot of asexuals to become romantically interested in someone. This is aesthetic attraction which can lead to romantic attraction but it's not necessarily sexual. 

I agree that if they experience look based sexual attraction hands on, then they are not demi. If they experience aesthetic , then they are still demi.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Why would they bother telling me then?


Why would anyone tell their sexual orientation to anyone? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to know if you're straight or gay or whatever but some people still tell you anyway.

I used to tell people casually that I'm asexual only if someone was showing interest in me. It's a warning. 

Now that I'm in a relationship. I just say I'm not available. Saves time.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> Why would anyone tell their sexual orientation to anyone? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to know if you're straight or gay or whatever but some people still tell you anyway.
> 
> I used to tell people casually that I'm asexual only if someone was showing interest in me. It's a warning.
> 
> Now that I'm in a relationship. I just say I'm not available. Saves time.


I don't think you are following my distrust. When people walk up to me and try to create an identity of themselves because of their sexuality, I don't trust that it's simply as you said "sexual attraction after emotional connection". There are people who will use labels to affect the way they appear even if it's based upon a misunderstanding of the label.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

sockratees said:


> A sexual attraction is not an aesthetic attraction. Look at the link I posted on attraction definitions from aven.
> 
> Flowers are aesthetically attractive, that does mean one wishes to have sex with them.


I guess I am just having trouble figuring out the difference between someone who 

----cannot form a secondary sexual attraction to someone who is not first deemed aesthetically attractive

and someone who

----experiences primary sexual attraction to someone's appearance before forming a secondary sexual attraction.

Functionally, wouldn't they be the same? Either way, you would be selecting your partner first by looks, and only afterward by emotional connection or relationship. In both cases, the appearance is the first requirement before being eligible for secondary sexual attraction. It seems like the exact same thing, but worded slightly differently to sound less superficial.

So, the aesthetic attraction is not inherently sexual, but is necessary for sexual attraction to occur? How does that not make it sexual? 

I understand aesthetic attraction because I personally experience aesthetic attraction that is not sexual. When I experience it, it is not a requirement for secondary sexual attraction. It is irrelevant information that has no bearing on my sexual feelings or my desire to form a romantic or sexual relationship. If it was required, it would count as primary sexual attraction.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

I think to help conceptualize one needs to visualize two scales of attraction: Sexual and romantic.

One end aromantic, asexual, the other sexual and romantic attraction.


----------



## Lady Isla (Feb 20, 2015)

I'm a learning a lot from this thread, because I don't know much about demisexuality. And just for the record, I have no problem with anyone identifying as being demisexual nor do I feel the need to judge it morally. What I'm curious about is what is the evidence that it is an independent sexuality and not more of a fetish or subtype of a sexuality? It's my understanding that homosexuals for instance recognize different types of gays, like "twinks" and such. Why is it so unique and different that it is a separate sexuality unto itself?


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I can grasp not wanting to build relationships out of just sex or sexual attraction. That I grasp.

I am not sure that I get the part where people that are self proclaimed demi sexuals say they dont have sexual attraction ever by sight. (I find this idea baffling) so your telling me... your not asexual and are capable of sexual attraction but only if its built on emotion? So like 'you' never see someone ammazingly attractive in ora or personality or appearance and think a sexual fantasy or think oh damn I would like to (in theory not actually without knowing) fuck them? Again I grasp it I just dont understand. I dont hold sexual attraction at the top of my list or let it rule all my choices, but the sentiment is that the fantasy or kinky thought never races thru the demisexuals head unless they have a deep emotional connection. Again I prefer a deep emotional chemistry as opposed to not but I consider myself to still have eyes, and a clit that are easily aroused how do peopel that say they are sexuals not get sexually aroused at times by default even? Wha? 

Anyways I hated writing this as sensors already have the bias against of being stupid and superficial again I wasnt saying sexual attraction needed to exceed emotional attraction I am not wrapping my head around it. I dont get it.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Lady Isla said:


> I'm a learning a lot from this thread, because I don't know much about demisexuality. And just for the record, I have no problem with anyone identifying as being demisexual nor do I feel the need to judge it morally. What I'm curious about is what is the evidence that it is an independent sexuality and not more of a fetish or subtype of a sexuality? It's my understanding that homosexuals for instance recognize different types of gays, like "twinks" and such. Why is it so unique and different that it is a separate sexuality unto itself?


I think because it's about the direction and type of attraction and not the object of attraction so much, though there are labels in sexuality that help differentiate subtle things like the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality.
Fetishizing twinks and bears wouldn't be the orientation though it'd give you the hint that one is likely homosexual, perhaps more likely to suspect they're sexual than not, though nothing to reference their romantic attraction.

There exist people who lack sexual attraction it seems but are interested in what seems to me like platonic love, just as there are people that have no desire for that romantic connection but like sex.

How permeable these labels are I don't know, some people may well incorrectly assume themselves fitting within the definition, but that's a part of people trying to understand themselves.
While some they find the language that nails exactly how they experience things, who find the very concept of sexual attraction without a more intimate emotional intimacy to be alien.
Though i think the confusion here is that people go well I experience and want both to varying degrees, but a rigid definition would say that one never experiences sexual attraction.
I think these are merely exemplars to help pinpoint things on a scale of attraction, people likely don't neatly fit into categories overall though some will.

Sexuality is quite a a whirl beyond what is expressed in mainstream media where you can find people who are sexually attracted to women but romantically attracted to men.
All sorts of mix matches, even peoples bisexuality is rather interesting in that some express feeling sexual attraction to one more than the other.


----------



## sockratees (Apr 7, 2015)

Cinnamon83 said:


> I can grasp not *wanting* to build relationships out of just sex or sexual attraction.


it isn't that we _want_ to, it's that we _have_ to. it is the only way our emotions work. it is not a conscious effort or choice.



Cinnamon83 said:


> I am not sure that I get the part where people that are self proclaimed demi sexuals say they dont have sexual attraction ever by sight. (I find this idea baffling) so your telling me... your not asexual and are capable of sexual attraction but only if its built on emotion? So like 'you' never see someone ammazingly attractive in ora or personality or appearance and think a sexual fantasy or think oh damn I would like to (in theory not actually without knowing) fuck them? Again I grasp it I just dont understand. I dont hold sexual attraction at the top of my list or let it rule all my choices, but the sentiment is that the fantasy or kinky thought never races thru the demisexuals head unless they have a deep emotional connection. Again I prefer a deep emotional chemistry as opposed to not but I consider myself to still have eyes, and a clit that are easily aroused how do peopel that say they are sexuals not get sexually aroused at times by default even? Wha?
> 
> Anyways I hated writing this as sensors already have the bias against of being stupid and superficial again I wasnt saying sexual attraction needed to exceed emotional attraction I am not wrapping my head around it. I dont get it.



we can get crushes, but the thoughts are "wow, i'd like to get to know that person/see them more.", never: "wow, i'd really like to bang that person." 

i don't know if most heterosexual guys get an erection from looking at girls pass by. i never had one from mere sight.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

sockratees said:


> it isn't that we _want_ to, it's that we _have_ to. it is the only way our emotions work. it is not a conscious effort or choice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I dont think any amount of explaining could help me understand. I get what you saying but I just dont understand it.

Well I didnt mean you had to get fully erect, but not even like a throb to the crotch ever from just find someone arousing.


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

It's the difference between "beautiful/handsome" and "hot". There are plenty of beautiful/handsome people in the world. Most people are that way, in their own way, IMHO. But for me, there's only one who is "hot" and that is my partner. Our relationship, and the connection I have with her, is what puts her above "beautiful" to "hot".

She often likes to tell me the story about how we were together on a crowded beach, just hanging out and enjoying the day, and she noticed I was only able to see/focus on her. I didn't even realize it at the time until she told me later. She said "there's all these people on the beach, why would you only look my way?" She's the only one I'm attracted to. They may all be beautiful, but to me, she's "hot" and they're not.


----------



## sockratees (Apr 7, 2015)

Cinnamon83 said:


> Well I didnt mean you had to get fully erect, but not even like a throb to the crotch ever from just find someone arousing.


nope, no activity at all down there for me.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

snail said:


> Okay, I will state it that way. I could go to a strip club, get a lap dance from a man I had never met, and not feel any sexual arousal at all. I would more likely just feel kind of disturbed that I live in the kind of society where being objectified could be someone's profession, and where there was high enough demand for it that such an industry existed.
> 
> But how am I supposed to know which experiences are universal for non-demis? I remember feeling alienated as a young person for being the only one among my friends who didn't have a celebrity crush, so I mentioned that, thinking it would show a distinction. I certainly felt different and excluded for it. I also see enough people mentioning the attractiveness of strangers that it seems like it could also be universal for non-demis. People seem to enjoy rating the sexiness of other people's bodies on a scale of one to ten, and I don't experience it. People on dating websites almost always have ridiculous and meaningless physical requirements for their partners that have nothing at all to do with who they are. I mentioned those types of scenarios because they are the ones I see other people engaging in most often.
> 
> And yes, I do think objectification is creepy and shameful, because from the perspective of someone who does not experience it, it seems really irrational, unwise, unfair, unkind, and disturbing. I'm sure you would probably feel the same in my position.


I don't think most women* would be turned on by receiving a lap dance from a guy, since a) male strippers are seen as entertainers, comedians, etc. and not serious at all, the way female strippers are, and b) a woman's body doesn't react the same way a male body does to arousal. 

Just because you don't understand something on a personal level doesn't mean you can't try on a theoretical level. I don't understand monosexuality. Enough people explain it to me to formulate a halfway decent picture, though. Just because you don't experience it doesn't make it "ridiculous". 

*Your gender marker was set to neutral, and I don't know how you identify, but I've come to believe you are female-bodied, at least.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

snail said:


> And yes, I do think objectification is creepy and shameful, because from the perspective of someone who does not experience it, it seems really irrational, unwise, unfair, unkind, and disturbing. I'm sure you would probably feel the same in my position.


See, this is still falling into the narrative of demis as simply being sexually repressed individuals. If you think sexual attraction is creepy and shameful then it would create a "cognitive dissonance" any time you had a sexual attraction which you could be suppressing in order to not be ashamed of your own sexuality. Yes, I know how that sounds, but when it comes to people I've known well enough to make a judgment on all the ones who called themselves demis didn't act like one and all of the people who did act like that were super religious and thought sex was a shameful thing.

PS: Also, given the sort of forum this is you can probably get away with calling heterosexual attraction "creepy and shameful", but can you imagine if you said homosexuals were "creepy and shameful" on this forum? You'd get called a complete bigot. So, that's probably not the best way to describe those with a different "sexual orientation" as yours. :happy:


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> See, this is still falling into the narrative of demis as simply being sexually repressed individuals. If you think sexual attraction is creepy and shameful then it would create a "cognitive dissonance" any time you had a sexual attraction which you could be suppressing in order to not be ashamed of your own sexuality. Yes, I know how that sounds, but when it comes to people I've known well enough to make a judgment on all the ones who called themselves demis didn't act like one and all of the people who did act like that were super religious and thought sex was a shameful thing.
> 
> PS: Also, given the sort of forum this is you can probably get away with calling heterosexual attraction "creepy and shameful", but can you imagine if you said homosexuals were "creepy and shameful" on this forum? You'd get called a complete bigot. So, that's probably not the best way to describe those with a different "sexual orientation" as yours. :happy:


I don't think sexual attraction in general is shameful and creepy... just objectification.
I have lots of sex, and I am not at all ashamed of my sexual feelings. I certainly don't think sex is a shameful thing. 

My apologies if I came across as being judgmental toward heterosexuals. I don't believe all heterosexual attractions falls into the category of objectification, but when it does, it causes me to feel very uncomfortable because I do see that as unethical unless it is mutually desired. Even in cases where both partners (or all partners in a polyamorous situation) prefer it, it seems unwise if the goal is to create a lasting bond with a person instead of an object.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

sockratees said:


> A sexual attraction is not an aesthetic attraction...
> Flowers are aesthetically attractive, that does mean one wishes to have sex with them.





sockratees said:


> we can get crushes, but the thoughts are "wow, i'd like to get to know that person/see them more.", never: "wow, i'd really like to bang that person."


I think @sockratees nailed it quite fine.

I will try to show the distinction in "sexual" and "demi-sexual" crush dynamics, using my friend's experience and mine.

My friend described his development of crush towards his girlfriend as:
"Initially I did not like her all that much, but later I saw her come out of shower with nipples erect under her T-shirt and I crushed at her."

My crush development:
I saw a girl that I thought was pretty. She was slim, had dark brow hair, a face of natural beauty and look in eyes that hinted on character. She was aesthetically pleasing to me and made me curious about her, but it was neither romantic nor sexual attraction that time (or I doubted that). But I curious to know a bit more and she got my attention.
Later she met with her friend, having a chat and i saw her smile and laugh. I felt distinctly different as "struck" by romantic attraction. A curiosity full of doubt changed into feeling of solid attraction - "falling in love" or crush.
I started to fantasize about her, but not erotically initially. Over some days that I did not meet her (to act on my romantic feelings) the fantasies slowly turned from just showing my affection and getting it in return and dating her to getting closer and closer. What would it be to touch her hair, skin, kiss her lips into finally making love with her looking into her eyes and see the smile/happiness.
None of the fantasies was about boobies, butt etc.

I also once crushed at my former schoolmate - I always found her quite pretty, but I guess it was the emotions of the (highschool) reunion that were expressed both ways that made the difference at that time. I was a little high and dizzy the whole time, but she was married that time so I just enjoyed her company (no sexual fantasies either).

I hold that it is that demi-sexual needs BOTH physical attractiveness and emotional bond in order to be sexually attracted.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

snail said:


> Looks-based sexual attraction is the opposite of demisexuality. A demisexual is defined as someone who does not experience "primary" sexual attraction, but who does experience "secondary" sexual attraction.
> 
> Primary sexual attraction is defined as sexual attraction based on information that is instantly available, such as appearance or smell.
> 
> ...


You confuse again sexual attraction with attraction based on looks. Those are not the same thing.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

Impavidus said:


> I don't see people and think "I want to have sex with them" I see people and think "I want to have a conversation with them."
> 
> I form fleeting mental attractions to people all the time. Someone will say something that catches my interest...then 30 seconds later they will say something else that has me recoiling in disgust


The first part is ridiculously relatable. The second - is also relatable. Most of the crushes I've had in my life were exclusively aesthetic and romantic, and a couple of them faded immediately when I found out the person was an idiot!




Halcyon said:


> There are three types of attraction.
> 
> Sensory attraction, where you're attracted to the aesthetics of a person ("I _like_ that").
> 
> ...


I hold off on calling myself demisexual or grey-a or anything other than heterosexual for reasons....but if _that's_ an accurate summary of sexual attraction, then I'm not sure I've ever experienced it...I swear, sex rarely occurs to me in the context of other people. 

The first two, though, I have definitely experienced in different degrees.




sockratees said:


> we can get crushes, but the thoughts are "wow, i'd like to get to know that person/see them more.", never: "wow, i'd really like to bang that person."


THIS.

I've never had the latter thought....and it kind of baffles me how people can...


*continues to watch thread*


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

snail said:


> I guess I am just having trouble figuring out the difference between someone who
> 
> ----cannot form a secondary sexual attraction to someone who is not first deemed aesthetically attractive
> 
> ...


Functionally only the latter is necessarily a demisexual, so from your own admission, the notion of demisexuality is not what matters to you, but more likely lack of what you deem superficiality. It seems that to you attraction based on looks is superficial and you don't want that. However this is not part of the definition of demisexual, which is that sexual attraction does not preceede an emotional bond or connection. Personally I would not consider someone superficial who is not attracted to an ugly person, but would not pursue someone merely for the sake of looks, but more important things such as their personality and character, but without which among other things, they would merely regard as a good friend, for lack of attraction. Finally attraction and selection are also quite distinct things; the first is something that you can hardly change, while the second is a choice. The former is typically a condition for the latter, though you may for instance marry someone for monetary reasons or political reasons or whatever, but it is definitively not a sufficient condition, so that one may be attracted to people but not select them.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Euclid said:


> You confuse again sexual attraction with attraction based on looks. Those are not the same thing.


I am not confusing those things. The sexual attraction I experience is not based on looks, and the looks-based attraction I experience is not sexual, so I know from experience what the difference is. Demisexuals, by definition, experience sexual attraction that is not based on looks. 

Someone whose sexual attraction was based on looks would not be a demisexual, since that would be "primary" sexual attraction. Demisexuals do not experience "primary" sexual attraction. Demisexuals only experience "secondary" sexual attraction. The person I was commenting to mentioned only being sexually attracted to people who looked a certain way, which would be primary sexual attraction.

Did you read the definitions in the link I posted? I am not the one who is confused. I am very clear about this. It is wrong for people to claim to be demisexuals if they experience primary sexual attraction, because it takes away from what it really means to be a demisexual. It makes the word meaningless and useless.

It would be like if a gay person who only wanted to date other gay people came across someone who claimed to be gay but was actually only sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex and just mislabeling it.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

snail said:


> Someone whose sexual attraction was based on looks would not be a demisexual, since that would be "primary" sexual attraction. Demisexuals do not experience "primary" sexual attraction. Demisexuals only experience "secondary" sexual attraction. The person I was commenting to mentioned *only* being sexually attracted to people who looked a certain way, which would be primary sexual attraction.


Here is the source of your confusion. Primary attraction is defined per the wiki you quoted:
"Primary Sexual Attraction: A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire."
The person you quoted did not say he was sexually attracted, but aesthetically attracted, that is not sexual attraction. His primary attraction was not sexual but aesthetic. A basis of attraction is a sufficient condition, that is, if the basis exists, then the attraction necessarily follows, however if X is only attracted to Y, it does not follow that Y is a basis for X, since Y is merely a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
So for instance, one may be aesthetically attracted only to people who look a certain way, thus only form relationships and become emotionally bonded to such people, and only from that bond feel sexual attraction to them. It follows that one is only sexually attracted to people who look a certain way, but it is not at all the basis for the attraction, which is the emotional bond.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Euclid said:


> Here is the source of your confusion. Primary attraction is defined per the wiki you quoted:
> "Primary Sexual Attraction: A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire."
> The person you quoted did not say he was sexually attracted, but aesthetically attracted, that is not sexual attraction. His primary attraction was not sexual but aesthetic. A basis of attraction is a sufficient condition, that is, if the basis exists, then the attraction necessarily follows, however if X is only attracted to Y, it does not follow that Y is a basis for X, since Y is merely a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
> So for instance, one may be aesthetically attracted only to people who look a certain way, thus only form relationships and become emotionally bonded to such people, and only from that bond feel sexual attraction to them. It follows that one is only sexually attracted to people who look a certain way, but it is not at all the basis for the attraction, which is the emotional bond.


It still seems like you are juggling words to avoid the truth of the situation, which is that the individual in question feels sexual attraction for which immediate information is a necessary condition. If it is at all different from primary attraction, it is not in any practical way that alters the effect. The difference would not be anything real or tangible. It would just be a different way of describing the exact same thing, an imaginary philosophical construct that would not have any bearing on the outcome or meaning of the actions. I believe that redefining things in such a manner defeats the entire purpose of having words to describe our realities.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

snail said:


> It still seems like you are juggling words to avoid the truth of the situation, which is that the individual in question feels sexual attraction for which immediate information is a necessary condition. If it is at all different from primary attraction, it is not in any practical way that alters the effect. The difference would not be anything real or tangible. It would just be a different way of describing the exact same thing, an imaginary philosophical construct that would not have any bearing on the outcome or meaning of the actions. I believe that redefining things in such a manner defeats the entire purpose of having words to describe our realities.


I'm not avoiding any truth, nor did I redefine any words. I used the word exactly as defined by the wiki you quoted. What is practical to you is not necessarily what is practical to me or others. Demisexuality wasn't a notion conceived with your interest in mind (to avoid what you deem to be superficial), it was quite likely conceived with the interest of those of us who want to avoid those who are merely looking for casual sex or otherwise avoid commitment and even if it wasn't, it is in our interest, so the term has practical use, without you needing to narrow it down to your particular interests.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Euclid said:


> I'm not avoiding any truth, nor did I redefine any words. I used the word exactly as defined by the wiki you quoted. What is practical to you is not necessarily what is practical to me or others. Demisexuality wasn't a notion conceived with your interest in mind (to avoid what you deem to be superficial), it was quite likely conceived with the interest of those of us who want to avoid those who are merely looking for casual sex or otherwise avoid commitment and even if it wasn't, it is in our interest, so the term has practical use, without you needing to narrow it down to your particular interests.


It's not about her particular interests when it affects an array of people, and demisexuals can avoid people who just want casual sex, but have made mistakes like human beings do just like I'm sure a homosexual person has had sex with a straight person, or an asexual person has had sex, and straight people have had sex with the same sex. It happens, but it doesn't mean they're gay or straight or sapiosexal or demisexual for their own interests soley. People are just how they are, not choosing to be.


----------



## Sweetish (Dec 17, 2009)

Faberry Never defy the Lion Quinn by patronustrip on DeviantArt

See that pic?

Initial response: Oh, it's two people.

Secondary response: Oh, they're close. Comfortably close, clearly touching. That communicates trust, intimacy.

Tertiary response: Oh, they're being playful! They must really like each other. They're so relaxed, and laugh easily together.

Final response: ... Hella turned on.

Contrast that with someone who would initially hone in on other things about the pic, for example anatomical features, clothing, skin, the underwear peeking out: I notice those things LAST because my brain is searching for declarations of an emotional connection, whether obvious or subtle.

I look for what a person is looking at, and how they're looking at it. I listen to their voice for cues of emotion, and I pay attention to what they talk about and how they talk about it. I see how they move, to discern a particular person's comfort level within their own body, and how they express their sensuality or repress it (in terms of emotion translating into motion, not in terms of visual physicality). Body language tells a lot about a person. Even so, that's just the outside layer.

Really getting to know a person takes much more time than mere glances or observation or chit chat, and my brain isn't going to want to have sex with a stranger. _I don't know that person._ Before sex, I must love the person, and before I love the person I must know the person, and before I know the person they need to have revealed who they are to me. That whole process takes time. There isn't any "love at first sight" or instant sexual attraction going on. What repulses me is the thought of having sex with someone I haven't grown to love. Having said that, you could pretty much extrapolate that everyone I meet initially turns me off. No, I don't want to have sex with you- _I don't know you_. I feel nothing emotionally, hence no attraction and no arousal.



Impavidus said:


> I usually just say that I'm asexual for the sake of simplicity. I'm probably closer to demisexual though. I do feel sexual attraction in limited situations. In my case, I don't require an emotional connection to feel sexual attraction. I require an INTENSE intellectual connection. Think Vulcan mind meld.
> 
> I can absolutely appreciate the aesthetic of a good-looking person of any gender. However, it's no more sexual than listening to nice piece of music or watching a sunset. It's basically just a "Huh, that's pretty" sort of response.
> 
> ...


That sounds to me to be sapiosexual, not demisexual.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

sockratees said:


> sexual frequency doesn't indicate demisexuality. tons of people have sex for emotional validation or from pressure from their partners or from a feeling of obligation. a lot of the asexuals i know receive no physical enjoyment from sex with their partners, they do it because they are expected/feel obligated to do so to keep the relationship. in a world of sexuals, they have little choice, but they enjoy knowing they are pleasing someone they care about.
> 
> the time frame a demisexual will begin to feel attraction often clashes with social protocol/expectation. sexuals often feel undesired if their partners block all of their sexual advances, so there is a lot of faking it involved. it's either that or basically remove yourself from the dating pool.


Then why do you want to date? If you are blocking sexual advances and faking. Why not just make friends. As a sexual person, if someone is harassing me with sexual advances and I am not interested, I don't want to be around them, unless they stop.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> I'm asexual and I'm probably having more sex than you are  What's your point?


Why would you do that?


----------



## Impavida (Dec 29, 2011)

Sweetish said:


> That sounds to me to be sapiosexual, not demisexual.


Not at all. Intellectual connection =/= intelligence.

I don't feel any attraction towards people who are intelligent. I feel attraction towards people with whom I have a connection.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Wellsy said:


> I think you may be wishing for discrete categories again, I would say the definitions offer exemplars of attraction which I think some people would fit snuggly within the definition, but that many people do experience degree of romantic attraction doesn't invalidate the category in it's utility nor accuracy.
> 
> I think you know a poll in itself wouldn't be be strong support even if it came out with the hypothesized results.
> 
> ...


The problem I have with all the smart stuff that you are saying, is that demisexuality is not an ethical choice (as you have clarified for R2D2DelRey) ...but men can still be socialized to be more sexual? That smells like bullshit to me. If being demisexual isn't just sexual repression or an ethical choice, how could men be socialized to be more physical? 

I understand the concept of aesthetics, like I like looking at photos of a female model, but feel no sexual attraction. I also understand asexual romantic attraction, as I have formed romantic crushes on women that were not ultimately sexual, not really. But you are saying men would still identify as having primary sexuality despite needing an intense connection first?

Honestly, I know demisexuality is real, but sexuality is a complex thing, majority of people are slightly bisexual and don't know or don't admit it, and what we are sexually and romantically attracted to can run together. Apparently a study was done that as long as there's some primary sexual attraction, you can fall in love with just about anyone with a series of revealing intimate questions and prolonged eye contact. There's also the idea that love is a choice, some men for example being so emotionally repressed that they actually are choosing not to love women they are otherwise sexually attracted to. They actually choose not to let themselves love and intentionally disconnect. Some one could argue that someone like Hotaru is the flip side of that. Someone so sexually repressed she chose not to feel sexual until she loved someone, then it just raged out of nowhere.

So it's almost like you ARE saying that demisexuality is just sexual repression.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

I have this weird thing where I can sometimes feel sexually attracted to people I don't know well, but lose the attraction when I get to know them better. It weirds me out in any case, why would I feel attracted to someone I don't know?

Regarding masturbation: If I have a picture in my mind that is too detailed, I lose any feeling that I had. I assume that that would be a problem if I were to actually pursue the real deal. So I'm effectively asexual, although I _do_ have a sex drive.

Waiting for the exception... and hoping that they like me too.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

stultum said:


> I have this weird thing where I feel sexually attracted to people I don't know well, but lose the attraction when I get to know them better; better yet, I don't feel like having sex outside of a relationship. So I'm effectively asexual, although I _do_ have a sex drive.
> 
> Waiting for the exception... and hoping that they like me too.


You're not asexual. You're objectifying people and lose interest when you see the person is just a person. This is common among sixth graders.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Thalassa said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point wasn't so much about the degree to which social things actually shape one's sexuality, but rather one's perceptions and how they would report it.
I don't think it hard to agree with their being social influences on how people report their sexuality which in part makes research problematic. It's the same sort of influence that has people under or over report the number of sexual partners they've had. 

How one perceives themselves can compromise the reliability of their self report. 
One would first have to show that men do indeed show such a bias of denying emotional components in attraction or what ever.

Though I get your point and how you responded is appropriate with how I've worded it.
More giving a1b2 a hard time since I don't like asserting speculations as anything more than being speculative.

EDIT: TBH I think im to fried at the moment to recognize if what you said correctly identified the implications of my post. I can get what you're saying a bit but I think im just tired and just went with a fresh thought of how to explain it because the post was so long ago XD


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Euclid said:


> Though it may go past many if not men, I can smell all the fine distinctions on the behaviour of women, that would hint at any level of promiscuity. If you are not a demisexual man yourself, you can hardly tell any difference. I would suggest there is a genetic origin of this sixth sense:
> Monogamy gene found in people - life - 01 September 2008 - New Scientist


You probably shouldn't announce this very often if you like having friends. It's a weird and offensive thing to say, since you apparently have a damaged sense of phermonal smell....because let's get real here, people who don't experience primary attraction can't be attracted by appearance or smell. The smell thing is disturbing. It probably means you shouldn't reproduce because you can't smell the sort of person who you are genetically matched to.

If demisexuality is real, you guys are not supposed to reproduce. I mean lack of primary sexual attraction suggests somehow something is wrong. You can experience the secondary expression though because of your emotional and intellectual humanity, and genital nerve endings. 

Otherwise it's a form of sexual repression.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> You probably shouldn't announce this very often if you like having friends. It's a weird and offensive thing to say, since you apparently have a damaged sense of phermonal smell....because let's get real here, people who don't experience primary attraction can't be attracted by appearance or smell. The smell thing is disturbing. It probably means you shouldn't reproduce because you can't smell the sort of person who you are genetically matched to.
> 
> If demisexuality is real, you guys are not supposed to reproduce. I mean lack of primary sexual attraction suggests somehow something is wrong. You can experience the secondary expression though because of your emotional and intellectually humanity, and genital nerve endings.
> 
> Otherwise it's a form of sexual repression.


I think it is the last bit. After all, being attracted to people that you have an emotional connection to seems very sensible to me, and is what I see around me most, so that can't be what they mean. (Who ever heard of two people entering into a relationship without them sharing an emotional connection, right?) 

I know that some people like to have one-night stands and such, but what's so strange about _not_ liking that? For reproduction (in women) it is beneficial if you know who the father of your child is, and for men it is beneficial to have your children cared for by more than one person, so they might want to enter into a relationship as well. In fact, most people I know don't understand what would be fun about having sex with someone you don't know well either. But that is also about how they were raised: most of us have learned that having sex is something you do with a person who is special to you. If you had learned that sex is something you do whenever you get the chance you would probably be more promiscuous. 

Yeah, I know that I said that I personally feel _less_ sexual attraction to people I know better - but that doesn't mean that I don't desire a relationship where I have both. Anyway, this is not about me but what I see when I look around.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

stultum said:


> I think it is the last bit. After all, being attracted to people that you have an emotional connection to seems very sensible to me, and is what I see around me most, so that can't be what they mean. (Who ever heard of two people entering into a relationship without them sharing an emotional connection, right?)
> 
> I know that some people like to have one-night stands and such, but what's so strange about _not_ liking that? For reproduction (in women) it is beneficial if you know who the father of your child is, and for men it is beneficial to have your children cared for by more than one person, so they might want to enter into a relationship as well. In fact, most people I know don't understand what would be fun about having sex with someone you don't know well either. But that is also about how they were raised: most of us have learned that having sex is something you do with a person who is special to you. If you had learned that sex is something you do whenever you get the chance you would probably be more promiscuous.
> 
> Yeah, I know that I said that I personally feel _less_ sexual attraction to people I know better - but that doesn't mean that I don't desire a relationship where I have both. Anyway, this is not about me but what I see when I look around.


See but you're talking about behavior, not orientation. Sexual people can be monogamous. That's why I found that persons post so arrogant and ridiculous. Demisexual men don't have a special ability to smell monogamous women, it's pretty obvious who those people are by the time you graduate high school. The people who will clearly mate for life in the eighth grade. I grew up in a very conservative place. The Bible Belt, one of the reddest states in the country. It was pretty obvious to me twenty years ago who I would see still married on my Facebook now, and I didn't have to smell it. As for men not being able to detect it, that's ludicrous too. Some men seem highly attracted to hyper sexual women. These men are usually attracted to the appearance of obvious sex, whether culturally applied or just in the woman's walk, body language, and what Lana del Rey called in one of her songs "a prostitute stare." There's no special smelling ability, and if there is, it certainly wouldn't be granted to a person who lacked the ability to smell suitable mates &#55357;&#56870;&#55357;&#56835;&#55357;&#56884;&#55357;&#56879;

Also, women preferring stability too much is bad. You want a good father for your child, but you also need the right antibodies. Choosing against primary attraction is actually dangerous, like playing disease and allergy roulette. My pet theory for all of these weak kids with allergies and Aspergers is women on birth control pills marrying unsuitable mates in increasing numbers in the past thirty years. Hormonal birth control actually makes women attracted to the wrong men. Lol.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> My pet theory for all of these weak kids with allergies and Aspergers is women on birth control pills marrying unsuitable mates in increasing numbers in the past thirty years. Hormonal birth control actually makes women attracted to the wrong men. Lol.


Well, my parents got together over 35 years ago, and she wasn't on birth control, so that can't be the reason why I have ASD. Allergies can be linked closely to the cleanliness of parents today (which is why it is mostly oldest children who get allergies in this way - look around, once you notice, you always notice.) and autism is simply because the definition of autism has changed.

It's more of a birds of a feather thing with the autism, I'm afraid. In the same way that I'll probably get trouble later in life with my thyroid gland because both of my parents had the same issues with it, I got the double dose of ASD traits from both of them.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Just to clarify, I'm saying demisexuality would be a deeply unconscious form of repression, not conscious repression or choice, which still makes it real. Like having a fetish, a real fetish. Not the colloquial sense, so deeply ingrained you can't do much about it. 

Or their pheromones or ability to detect them is actually broken in some way. Thus real actual lack of primary attraction.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

stultum said:


> Well, my parents got together over 35 years ago, and she wasn't on birth control, so that can't be the reason why I have ASD. Allergies can be linked closely to the cleanliness of parents today (which is why it is mostly oldest children who get allergies in this way - look around, once you notice, you always notice.) and autism is simply because the definition of autism has changed.
> 
> It's more of a birds of a feather thing with the autism, I'm afraid. In the same way that I'll probably get trouble later in life with my thyroid gland because both of my parents had the same issues with it, I got the double dose of ASD traits from both of them.


People aren't supposed to marry people who have similar illnesses but the opposite. None of my sisters or I have allergies. My mother married handsome aggressive creeps, but we're all physically healthy. Even my addict sister is strangely good looking, healthy and alive. A weaker woman would be dead, or ravaged. Her youngest daughter has Aspergers, but she inherited it from her father, a man my sister openly admitted she wasn't strongly attracted to but chose for security and money. 

Your mother could have chosen against primary attraction without birth control, via socialization that represses women sexually. It wasn't to benefit women, but men, giving them more control.

I'm not knocking your parents or you, I apologize if I'm insulting you. Every family has genetic issues, mine has bipolar disorder. BUT there's been a sharp increase in Aspergers. Like crazy numbers of autism. And it's been confirmed that birth control makes women choose different men, not necessarily to genetic benefit, but towards the stability a pregnant woman seeks. I won't take that shit, no sir.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> Why would you do that?


My partner is sexual.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> You probably shouldn't announce this very often if you like having friends. It's a weird and offensive thing to say, since you apparently have a damaged sense of phermonal smell....because let's get real here, people who don't experience primary attraction can't be attracted by appearance or smell. The smell thing is disturbing. It probably means you shouldn't reproduce because you can't smell the sort of person who you are genetically matched to.
> 
> If demisexuality is real, you guys are not supposed to reproduce. I mean lack of primary sexual attraction suggests somehow something is wrong. You can experience the secondary expression though because of your emotional and intellectual humanity, and genital nerve endings.
> 
> Otherwise it's a form of sexual repression.


It's not clear here that you understand the difference between primary attraction and primary sexual attraction, since you seem to use the interchangeably. Once you realize primary attraction doesn't have to be sexual, your argument falls apart.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> People aren't supposed to marry people who have similar illnesses but the opposite. None of my sisters or I have allergies. My mother married handsome aggressive creeps, but we're all physically healthy. Even my addict sister is strangely good looking, healthy and alive. A weaker woman would be dead, or ravaged. Her youngest daughter has Aspergers, but she inherited it from her father, a man my sister openly admitted she wasn't strongly attracted to but chose for security and money.
> 
> Your mother could have chosen against primary attraction without birth control, via socialization that represses women sexually. It wasn't to benefit women, but men, giving them more control.
> 
> I'm not knocking your parents or you, I apologize if I'm insulting you. Every family has genetic issues, mine has bipolar disorder. BUT there's been a sharp increase in Aspergers. Like crazy numbers of autism. And it's been confirmed that birth control makes women choose different men, not necessarily to genetic benefit, but towards the stability a pregnant woman seeks. I won't take that shit, no sir.


I'm not insulted, I know that you don't mean it that way. And anyway, long-term compatibility is probably good for stability, which is a definite pro in how your kids turn out. Everything has upsides and downsides.

Our health or intelligence didn't suffer from it in any case. Maybe I need to get a small part from my thyroid gland cut out when I'm fifty, so what.

EDIT: Oh wow, way off topic.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

stultum said:


> I'm not insulted, I know that you don't mean it that way. And anyway, long-term compatibility is probably good for stability, which is a definite pro in how your kids turn out. Everything has upsides and downsides.
> 
> Our health or intelligence didn't suffer from it in any case. Maybe I need to get a small part from my thyroid gland cut out when I'm fifty, so what.
> 
> EDIT: Oh wow, way off topic.


Yeah I am really sorry if you felt personally insulted. Historically the rich and middle class always had more illness because they marry for stability, while peasants are physically strong and insane in a different way because they go with primary attraction. Both are good and bad in different ways. I just think society in general is wrong, there shouldn't be this dichotomy, there should be a balance. I think we are supposed to optimally live in tribes. Yes way off topic.

The end.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> Just to clarify, I'm saying demisexuality would be a deeply unconscious form of repression, not conscious repression or choice, which still makes it real. Like having a fetish, a real fetish. Not the colloquial sense, so deeply ingrained you can't do much about it.
> 
> Or their pheromones or ability to detect them is actually broken in some way. Thus real actual lack of primary attraction.


I would actually rather compare it with psychological types - the fact that you are thinker doesn't necessarily mean that your feeling is totally broken (or sensing/intuition). It just may be less sensitive compared to other kinds of attraction and need co-stimulation from the other brain centers (highly speculative). 
I take it that sexual people have the sexual attraction quite straight forward. For demi-sexuals it is rather roundabout and the sexual attraction/lust is felt only (or strongly enough) when everything else clicks in.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

SilverFalcon said:


> I would actually rather compare it with psychological types - the fact that you are thinker doesn't necessarily mean that your feeling is totally broken (or sensing/intuition). It just may be less sensitive compared to other kinds of attraction and need co-stimulation from the other brain centers (highly speculative).
> I take it that sexual people have the sexual attraction quite straight forward. For demi-sexuals it is rather roundabout and the sexual attraction/lust is felt only (or strongly enough) when everything else clicks in.


From a genetic breeding standpoint, actually it would be broken. It doesn't mean you can't have fulfillment in life as an adult with your own romantic and sexual relationship, but it actually makes breeding less than optimal.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> My partner is sexual.


So you do it for emotional reasons to please your partner. Even sexuals who aren't totally selfish cretins do this from time to time, but do you still feel you are allowed to refuse, since you have made it ENTIRELY about your partner?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Euclid said:


> It's not clear here that you understand the difference between primary attraction and primary sexual attraction, since you seem to use the interchangeably. Once you realize primary attraction doesn't have to be sexual, your argument falls apart.


No, no it doesn't. If you don't experience primary sexual attraction, the pheromonal factor is removed, suggesting you choose one gender over another for cultural or aesthetic reasons. In a last people on earth scenario, this is ok because we simply would need more humans. But in a normal society, especially an overpopulated world, you actually are lacking the ability to smell genetic compatibility, why one person smells meh, another kind of icky, and another is yummy, no matter how clean they all equally are. Women especially are designed to choose optimal mates in this fashion, though men are not exempt despite their visual bias towards traits of fertility. 

You may experience aesthetic attraction because of childhood experience, cultural norms, or fascination with certain physical traits, but you aren't choosing for a genetic match. Sexual people would in most cases choose a partner for both reasons (primary and secondary) ...but the primary sexual attraction is vital to things like genetic antibodies. 

I am more convinced it's a form of deep sexual repression akin to fetishism, though, in most cases. Reading some of the posts in this thread make it seem that way, with Hotaru giving her example of even being able to watch porn with projection, and snail describing experiencing sexual obsession after bonding with a person combined with such a kind of holier than thou attitude about liking people for physical traits AT ALL. All admiration or desire isn't objectification. Objectification means stripping a person of their humanity, such as the idea that prostitutes or people who have one night stands aren't "real people" who deserve basic human dignity, respect or love. Men are much more likely to objectify women in this way, even while engaging in sex with those women. 

Your post reeks of that kind of crap, btw, saying you can uniquely smell monogamous women, as though a woman couldn't choose to be monogamous or not according to different times in her life, or that there aren't sexual people who have long monogamous marriages. Unless you are already married and were a virgin upon marrying your wife, I suggest in the future you keep your mouth shut about your magical ability to smell monogamous women. 

It's your personal preference and you are entitled to it, but the way you phrased it was bizarre, like women can be secretly whores who trick sexual men, and you have super powers. Which doesn't even follow logic if you can't even be sexually attracted by scent.


----------



## Sweetish (Dec 17, 2009)

Why are any of you even dignifying @Thalassa with a response? There's no data about which demisexuals are with a histocompatible partner and which aren't. Even if there somehow is, and I simply don't know about it, it's not been referenced or cited.

Such broad speculation is reduced to mere opinion, not fact.

Speculation after speculation after speculation, with nothing to back it up.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Sweetish said:


> Why are any of you even dignifying @Thalassa with a response? There's no data about which demisexuals are with a histocompatible partner and which aren't. Even if there somehow is, and I simply don't know about it, it's not been referenced or cited.
> 
> Such broad speculation is reduced to mere opinion, not fact.
> 
> Speculation after speculation after speculation, with nothing to back it up.


Well I'm just wondering for the first time what lack of attraction from smell means. Blame Euclid with his holier than thou assertions that he can smell monogamy. I used to just kind of accept demisexuality blandly, like anything. I think my nephew might be demisexual (he's currently 17). I entered this thread with respect and curiosity but was angered by the holier than thou attitude towards sexual people, from some (not all) and then what Euclid said...actually made me think. Why can't you people smell pheromones? What does that mean? It means something. 

If you don't want to be challenged don't say such things. This is so much grayer than being bisexual or gay (I'm heterosexual with strong biromantic tendencies, and mild bisexual tendencies, a thing I worked with in a culture that glorifies depiction of open female bisexual behavior for men's pleasure, and one of my best friends is a trans woman and pansexual).

I'm not your enemy. That's why you should dignify me with a response. Because I'm not beneath you morally for being sexual, or even non-monogamous. Because I want to know the logic that occurs here.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> Well I'm just wondering for the first time what lack of attraction from smell means. Blame Euclid with his holier than thou assertions that he can smell monogamy.


Are you sure you are not putting words in his mouth? "Smell" can have different meanings literal.Take for example idiom "smell a rat".

"I can smell all the fine distinctions on the behaviour of women" really don't strike me as pheromonal detection at all. Logical interpretation is: "Since I am not blinded by primal lust I can read lots of fine distinctions in behavior the others miss."

And it is completely reasonable to state that high levels of oxytocin pronounce in behavior.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

SilverFalcon said:


> Are you sure you are not putting words in his mouth? "Smell" can have different meanings literal.Take for example idiom "smell a rat".
> 
> "I can smell all the fine distinctions on the behaviour of women" really don't strike me as pheromonal detection at all. Logical interpretation is: "Since I am not blinded by primal lust I can read lots of fine distinctions in behavior the others miss."
> 
> And it is completely reasonable to state that high levels of oxytocin pronounce in behavior.


Of course sexual attraction blinds people to many things. One of my subjects of the evening, the music of Lana del Rey, deals with the incongruity of rationality and emotional attachment, in a bold unapologetic way that I cat help but admire, like she's writing a politically incorrect novel. It's not as vapid as most pop, but it's also not a kind of self monitoring politically correct shit. Like ok Diet Mountain Dew, You're not good for me but I want you.

Here's the thing, Euclid didn't present it a metaphor, he posted an article about genetic predisposition to monogamy, like it's a sixth sense. It annoyed me. Not because I think being non monogamous is wrong and can't accept monogamous behavior in a placid way, I actually personally PREFER mindful promiscuity. I love men who don't want virgins, and are experienced enough to be just...not intimidated. ..yet CHOOSE monogamy, which is powerful to me, like I like you enough to be with you and tell you what I used to do, it actually doesn't intimidate me unless it's hidden, because hidden suggests it wants to continue. Revelation says here's what I learned, and now I trust YOU.

GREAT, Euclid chose his mate logically. It doesn't mean it's histamine relevant, or a happier situation than being able to experience lust. I like the choice. It makes me feel chosen.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> GREAT, Euclid chose his mate logically. It doesn't mean it's histamine relevant, or a happier situation than being able to experience lust.


Not necessarily, if I would extrapolate from mine experience of INTP I would say its ex-post rationalization of involuntary process rather than logical choice. Logical choice is outside the phenomenon of attraction - it's the decision to act or not to act on the attraction (or lack of one).

Inablility to experience lust would be asexuality I guess. But I take the terms as vague categories without sharp borders.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> So you do it for emotional reasons to please your partner. Even sexuals who aren't totally selfish cretins do this from time to time, but do you still feel you are allowed to refuse, since you have made it ENTIRELY about your partner?


It's mainly for intimacy which is for both of us. I can go on my whole life without having sex with my partner or anyone and would never feel unfulfilled by it. However, for a sexual like my partner, sex is probably the deepest form of intimacy. I don't want sex but I want us to be as close as possible and if it's through sex, so be it.

But it's not like I'm just lying there and feeling miserable lol It's enjoyable on a physical level. I have a fairly high sex drive so I don't mind at all. Although I prefer masturbation (most asexuals so), I don't see having sex with my partner as a "big sacrifice" or "a chore" or whatever. I see sex as having a mutual sexual release. So instead of doing it on my own I include my partner to get a sexual release. Having a sex drive which is on the higher spectrum and not minding to replace masturbation with sex definitely help. 

For example, getting a sexual release to me is like eating a meal when you're hungry. Why would I eat with other people, have conversations, share food and whatnot when I can just eat quickly and peacefully by myself? I see no point in involving another person to have a sexual release. It's as pointless as eating with another person. However, if it was someone I love like my partner and they wanted to have dinner with me, then why not? I would enjoy the food itself and the fact that we're spending time together and getting closer because of it. But I wouldn't go out of the way to have dinner with anyone cuz I've never had any desire to have dinner with anyone. Do you get what I mean?

I think everyone should have a right to refuse when they are not in the mood. It's not like my partner is forcing me to do anything. I don't owe sex to anyone and even to my partner who is in a relationship with me. I don't do obligations. Being in a relationship with me doesn't mean there's guaranteed sex.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Swede said:


> Don't sweat it, chickie - he already got infracted.


TWN Is a girl O_O lol


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

chip said:


> TWN Is a girl O_O lol


Woups - well, good catch! lol


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

I'm so frustrated with it. Like I actually met someone who, from a purely objective viewpoint, would be a PERFECT match for me. Except I literally feel no sexual or romantic attraction to him whatsoever. Or anything at all. Is it because I don't find him physically attractive or have I not developed enough of an emotional connection with him? I have no idea and it's driving me crazy.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

KateMarie999 said:


> I'm so frustrated with it. Like I actually met someone who, from a purely objective viewpoint, would be a PERFECT match for me. Except I literally feel no sexual or romantic attraction to him whatsoever. Or anything at all. Is it because I don't find him physically attractive or have I not developed enough of an emotional connection with him? I have no idea and it's driving me crazy.



Have you delved into his personality enough? Have you made long eye contact before? Have you both hugged or touched?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Swede said:


> Woups - well, good catch! lol





chip said:


> TWN Is a girl O_O lol


TWN is actually genderqueer AFAB.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Torai said:


> TWN is actually genderqueer AFAB.


I guess what matters is being nice and not attacking me.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

chip said:


> I guess what matters is being nice and not attacking me.


I mean, I don't particularly care for them either, but misgendering is still misgendering.


----------



## INTJ Killed July (May 2, 2015)

> TWN is actually genderqueer AFAB.





chip said:


> I guess what matters is being nice and not attacking me.


So being insensitive to someone's gender is perfectly fine, because you felt attacked?

I was going to write a detailed description of the commonalities & differences between demi, pan, and bi-sexuals, but since it's clear you don't respect the gender or orientation of others I don't see the point in justifying your overtly emotional post with logical conclusions.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Swede said:


> Who has asked for sympathy? I'm confused - did I miss something?


The people acting butthurt that I have a speculation that demisexuality is either a form of deep childhood sexual repression, or actual biological lack of ability to "smell" compatible sexual partners, so choose companions by things like shared values or intellectual connection, and that's fine ...I just wonder about how adequate the matches are for breeding. 

I don't want to argue about it, I don't care, I came in here respectfully, then honestly saw a lot of bullshit. The tone some demisexuals communicate with suggest sexual repression, compared to religious prudery, more than anything. 

And yes, I do think it's possible some asexuals are just pathological in their self absorbtion, while others simply lack interest.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

KateMarie999 said:


> I'm so frustrated with it. Like I actually met someone who, from a purely objective viewpoint, would be a PERFECT match for me. Except I literally feel no sexual or romantic attraction to him whatsoever. Or anything at all. Is it because I don't find him physically attractive or have I not developed enough of an emotional connection with him? I have no idea and it's driving me crazy.


I think thats...normal...

Romantic attractive or sexual attraction isn't exactly objective. Its not as simple as "well this person has trait x,y,z and thats objectively perfect for me so now I'm attracted to them". That seems so disconnected to me. Attraction is more fluid, sometimes it just happens, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it might happen with someone where it isn't really a perfect match, and sometimes there is a on paper perfect match but the attraction doesn't really come.

If this is the type of thing that makes people think they are demisexuals, well.. I'm more than a little skeptical. 

Its just them over thinking the nature of attraction.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Torai said:


> TWN is actually genderqueer AFAB.


Good to know, I guess. I could have sworn that the Gender section under their icon said male the day before yesterday and that it changed to neutral yesterday (actually not unlikely), but I might be wrong. Anyway, that I why I picked the pronoun "he". 
I did check out their profile later, but there is really no info in regards to preferred pronouns there. Short of going back and reading all their history, I based my pronoun on what I last recalled reading.

Either way, TWN's behavior yesterday was not constructive nor respectful, no matter what TWN's gender identity is. I don't really see myself interacting with the person in question anymore, or I would seriously care more.

@_INTJ Killed July_, stop with the drama. There has been enough of that in this thread and @_chip_ is right - gender identity does not give anyone a free pass to behave like a disrespectful bully. Pick a fight with those individuals instead. Don't try to make this about something that it's not. 
I'm interested in what your thoughts are in the subject in op, so... post?


----------



## INTJ Killed July (May 2, 2015)

Swede said:


> Good to know, I guess. I could have sworn that the Gender section under their icon said male the day before yesterday and that it changed to neutral yesterday (actually not unlikely), but I might be wrong. Anyway, that I why I picked the pronoun "he".
> I did check out their profile later, but there is really no info in regards to preferred pronouns there. Short of going back and reading all their history, I based my pronoun on what I last recalled reading.
> 
> Either way, TWN's behavior yesterday was not constructive or respectful, no matter what TWN's gender identity is. I don't really see myself interacting with the person in question anymore, or I would seriously cared more.
> ...


Who said that person was acting out because of their gender?

From what I've read, they were in the right.










I have quite a few thoughts on the subject, and have studied a few demisexuals up close and personal. But as I said earlier, I see no reason to discuss my ideas & observations in a thread if people are going to be overly-emotional, or dramatic.

I'd certainly be open to an adult conversation, but I dont think we'll get to that place on this specific thread.

Feel free to start another, and tag me.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

@INTJ Killed July, sorry, I don't do manipulation (which is a pretty obvious element in the only two posts I've read of yours). I'm not going to serve you and start a thread and beg you to comment to share your wisdom with the masses. 

If you are referring to the quoted segment in post #135, written by the now banned person, as "being right", I doubt that I'll be interested in anything you can share anyway, tbh. Don't bother.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

INTJ Killed July said:


> > TWN is actually genderqueer AFAB.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see how I was insensitive when I focused on how I dislike for people to be mean and attack others regardless of their gender. Never did I say that I disrespect anyone's gender so run along and accuse someone else of being a bigoted asshole.


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> I think thats...normal...
> 
> Romantic attractive or sexual attraction isn't exactly objective. Its not as simple as "well this person has trait x,y,z and thats objectively perfect for me so now I'm attracted to them". That seems so disconnected to me. Attraction is more fluid, sometimes it just happens, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it might happen with someone where it isn't really a perfect match, and sometimes there is a on paper perfect match but the attraction doesn't really come.
> 
> ...


Ehh no, I have zero sexual attraction with anyone at all. The only time I ever have was after years of friendship and then I found out the guy was lying to me so it turned out I'd fallen for the false image he'd projected the entire time.

I'm dying alone.


----------



## INTJ Killed July (May 2, 2015)

Swede said:


> @INTJ Killed July, sorry, I don't do manipulation (which is a pretty obvious element in the only two posts I've read of yours). I'm not going to serve you and start a thread and beg you to comment to share your wisdom with the masses.
> 
> If you are referring to the quoted segment in post #135, written by the now banned person, as "being right", I doubt that I'll be interested in anything you can share anyway, tbh. Don't bother.


I'm perfectly fine with you not starting a thread, and was never trying to manipulate you, but I suppose it's your choice to decide if you're going to take offense to me exercising my right to not speak on your command. 

With that said, I'll gladly leave this thread - It's clear by how the other thread went down, that some people can't speak on adult subjects without getting angry, or upset.

If you ever want to have an adult discussion, door's always been open.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Lols go away you silly troll.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> And yes, I do think it's possible some asexuals are just pathological in their self absorbtion, while others simply lack interest.


I agree with this, but I'd say that it is applicable to pretty much any sexual orientation or preference in any area of life. I mean, separating psychology from biology is pretty difficult to do, which is why it's tricky to verify a hypothesis based on communication with just a few individuals. 
The same reasoning is for example applicable to 'promiscuity' as well (however people choose to define that term - I'd say that it is highly subjective), but I'd say that a sexual orientation only becomes an actual issue when the individual or people the individual interacts with are suffering from it. It seems like a lot of demis or asexuals are actually completely fine with their orientation.

It seems to me that many INTJs identify as demi from discussions in the INTJ forum, which is not real surprising when taking into account the way many INTJs tend to form relationships and how many INTJs view romantic relationships. (I think that the Vulcan mindmeld is an awesome thought, btw.)

I also think that some of us change over time or during certain times in our lives. I was highly sexual when I was younger, generally much more driven than my partners, but I still didn't get much out of it if I didn't have a mental connection. I tried sex with a couple of guys I didn't really know and just felt meh. It was just not worth the time. If I had loved it, I would likely had been more open to the idea of me having sex with men I don't connect intellectually with. I know that other people can have great sex with strangers and that's great for them - I have been a little bit envious of people like that a couple of times. It sounds pretty cool, tbh.

I have analyzed my own behavior/preference during the years and I have asked myself why I function the way I do, but since I don't suffer from it, I am not really trying to resolve anything. But, yeah, I have thought about the possibility of sexual repression*, emotional repression, etc. In my case, I think that it's about the need to feel 100% safe with my partner (based on lack of support in childhood), in combination with me finding intelligent men attractive (iow, I pretty much have to get to know them) and that I do feel the need to connect deeply with the few people I view as friends (latter is also a pretty typical INTJ characteristic). 
If my sexuality is 'healthy' or not, I don't honestly know. I guess that anything can be unhealthy when exaggerated in either way. 

I suspect that if I never found men that I connected with intellectually, I might very well have viewed myself as asexual, but I'm not sure tbh since masturbation is really important to me. Has always been, whether single or not. It's a great stress release tool.

*When I think about it some more I'd say not likely, since I've never had the urge to have sex with anyone when I got drunk back when I drank alcohol. As a matter of fact, I get ridiculously 'innocent'/clueless when I drink. "Why are you putting your tongue in my mouth? That's silly! Let's go dance!" 
Hormone levels are within normal levels everytime I've done hormone panels during the last decade or so, so that's not it either.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

chip said:


> Lols go away you silly troll.


Annnd you just proved his/her point.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

aef8234 said:


> Annnd you just proved his/her point.


Says troll #2 ;D


----------

