# Demisexual is not a real sexuality.



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Similar to sapiosexual, it's just a pretentious term people use to try distinguish themselves.

It is common to want to develop emotional connections with people before having sex with them, it's also common to have your attraction to someone increase over time once you get to know them more and gain a stronger emotional connection. Those traits don't mean you need a unique label for your sexuality. Also there really isn't anyone who only feels attraction after a strong emotional bond is made, every single person I've seen who describes themselves as demisexual I've also seen make at least some comments about people they don't know or just met (like..."they're hot" for example).


----------



## katemess (Oct 21, 2015)

Yep. Someone I know labels herself "demisexual, panromantic"... what the actual fuck?


----------



## voicetrocity (Mar 31, 2012)

Sounds like you've got it all figured out for yourself.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Similar to sapiosexual, it's just a pretentious term people use to try distinguish themselves.
> 
> It is common to want to develop emotional connections with people before having sex with them, it's also common to have your attraction to someone increase over time once you get to know them more and gain a stronger emotional connection. Those traits don't mean you need a unique label for your sexuality. *Also there really isn't anyone who only feels attraction after a strong emotional bond is made, every single person I've seen who describes themselves as demisexual I've also seen make at least some comments about people they don't know or just met (like..."they're hot" for example)*.


Is not necessarily a contradiction if they notice that aesthetically. It's not like demisexuals are blind to people's physical bodies, but those bodies just don't really turn you on and specifically, having sex with those people no matter how physically attractive they are, won't really do much in terms of sexual attraction. A flower can be beautiful too but you don't wanna fuck it. This is the same thing.

I personally feel that demisexual is the label that ultimately describes my sexual orientation, yes, sexual orientation, the best, because in terms of sex, I only really feel sexual attraction to someone I have an emotional connection to. I couldn't have sex with someone just because they're "hot" and I frankly don't think of people's bodies in terms of sexual attraction in the first place. I think of them in terms of beautiful/ugly, what I find more or less pleasing to my eyes for the same reason I prefer to play female characters in video games because they tend to look better than the men. 

That's the power of demisexuality as a term to describe sexual orientation, and it's only meant to describe this.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

How does me calling myself a demisexual impact your life though? What I choose to label myself as has absolutely no effect on you. It absolutely baffles me how much people police others and their sexuality. Just, why?

I know for a fact that I don't experience any kind of physical or sexual attraction based on aesthetics alone. I always used to get so confused seeing other girls gush over someone hot, or talk about touching themselves thinking of X or Y's body. To me, yes they're aesthetically appealing but it does absolutely nothing to me. It's only when I know them and establish a connection of some sorts (and this can be a unique process in each case) do I start to experience that sexual attraction.

How is it pretentious? I'm not judging sexual people who can fuck someone based on how hot they are. I'm not looking down on them, or calling them whores. I'm just understanding my own sexuality and minding my own business.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

I definitely believe its possible that there are people who only experience attraction to someone after building an emotional bond with them. What is considered an emotional bond? I don't know.

I think sexuality is a spectrum so no label is going to be 100% and some of them may overlap in different ways. If we really want to we can keep breaking up sexuality into smaller and smaller pieces but after a while it starts becoming redundant. 

As far as the "they're hot" example, I've called people hot before but had no sexual attraction to them. It can sometimes be an aesthetic observation.

In conclusion, I believe demiseuxality does exist but for the most part ends up being redundant.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

It also really bothers me how much people resent labels and don't even try to approach it from a place of curiosity and open mindedness. Sexuality is such a complex, fluid thing and there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to understand that part of ourselves and finding people who have the same experience (very important when you're made to feel like a freak if you're not heterosexual and want to fuck someone because they're "hot"). Yes, labels can be confusing, there can be overlap, but at least we live in a society nowadays when you have more options than gay & straight. 



> It is common to want to develop emotional connections with people before having sex with them, it's also common to have your attraction to someone increase over time once you get to know them more and gain a stronger emotional connection. Those traits don't mean you need a unique label for your sexuality


Sure, it is. But as a demisexual, without that connection, I don't experience any kind of attraction. Simple as that.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Similar to sapiosexual, it's just a pretentious term people use to try distinguish themselves.
> 
> It is common to want to develop emotional connections with people before having sex with them, it's also common to have your attraction to someone increase over time once you get to know them more and gain a stronger emotional connection. Those traits don't mean you need a unique label for your sexuality. Also there really isn't anyone who only feels attraction after a strong emotional bond is made, every single person I've seen who describes themselves as demisexual I've also seen make at least some comments about people they don't know or just met (like..."they're hot" for example).


I used to think I was demisexual when I was younger because I only liked a handful of girls in my life til that point and they all started out as close friends first... But then I realized I was just a late bloomer and now I check out girls all the time lol


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

I think there's a lot of people who wouldn't have any interest in sex until they had a real emotional connection-- it seems like a normal, common thing to me. I don't think it needs to be a whole new branch of sexuality. Its kind of implying that those of us who aren't demisexual are just ready to hump anyone who walks by.

I think the reason demisexuality exists as a thing is because of the (falsely) hypersexualized nature of society. Society makes us feel that we should be constantly horny and constantly ready to have a go. People who don't feel that way feel a need to create a label to justify their "differences." I don't think its pretentious (or at least, if it is, its forgiven)-- I just think its just a natural thing to do when you feel that society is treating you as marginalized or different. 


But I also do sort of wish demisexuality wasn't considered an orientation -because if you think about it, that doesn't make sense. "Orientation" means what direction you are facing. So it makes sense to use it referring to which gender you are attracted to. But demisexuality is more a description of intensity and/or timing and conditions of your sexual desire. 

Also I just wish it was acknowledged that most people aren't as sexual as society makes it seem... I wish there wasn't a separate category for it. Because in a way thats most alienating for the rest of us.


----------



## Vermilion Bird (Feb 16, 2015)

It really depends on how you define sexual orientation.

Let me start off by saying that I believe demisexuality does exist as a state of being/form of attraction regardless if it is seen as a sexual orientation or not.

If sexual orientation is _*who*_ someone is attracted to, then I personally wouldn't consider it one. Like, if we were to look at the prefixes, hetero = attracted to other, **** = attracted to same, bi = attracted to two (or more)* genders, a = attracted to none, pan = attracted to all genders. Demisexual would not really fit in that way. For example, I have my sexual orientation/preference listed as bisexual on here because I am attracted to both men and women, but I have previously referred to myself as a demisexual, as I must develop a strong emotional bond with someone before beginning to feel sexually attracted to them. However, if sexual orientation defines _*who*_ I'm attracted to, it would be more accurate of me to call myself a bisexual. That doesn't mean I don't have to develop a strong emotional bond with someone before I feel sexual attraction; it just describes _*who*_ I'm attracted to.

Demisexuality is totally valid and real as a state of being and form of attraction, but whether or not it is seen as an actual sexual orientation is up to the individual's own definition of sexual orientation, and we all have different ways of perceiving such a thing. It doesn't matter to me how people see it. The only thing that matters to me is that people are treated well and accepted regardless of the labels we assign _ourselves_. Let it be up to the individuals. We're all unique anyway.

*I've heard the term _polysexual_ used in this case, too.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

I actually tend to agree with you, OP, but I also don't really care that much either.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Similar to sapiosexual, it's just a pretentious term people use to try distinguish themselves.
> 
> It is common to want to develop emotional connections with people before having sex with them, it's also common to have your attraction to someone increase over time once you get to know them more and gain a stronger emotional connection. Those traits don't mean you need a unique label for your sexuality. Also there really isn't anyone who only feels attraction after a strong emotional bond is made, every single person I've seen who describes themselves as demisexual I've also seen make at least some comments about people they don't know or just met (like..."they're hot" for example).


It appear(s) flawed. 

It does not specify - ''strong'' emotional implication(s) and what is meant by such - do ''strong'' emotional bond(s) require love + ''long'' periods of time .. (?)

It also states ''short-period'' of emotional-connection(s) as well.

As stated (via) Demisexual™ site;



> Other components may include familiarity with the person and knowledge about them (ex: learning about aspects of their personality).


Thus, 

Can (X) individual have a ''one night-stand'' after a _30 minute _conversation with a stranger, then engage within intercourse ... (?) 

By strong ''emotional'' bond, however, I recognize *trust* - (i.e., strong enough ''emotional'' motive(s) to ignite a ''belief'' / faith-in - another said individual to _engage_ & negotiate interest / trade-off(s).

Thus, ''anyone / everyone'' can be Demisexual™ - as the only thing ''needed'' to be demisexual is ''trust'' (i.e., strong enough emotional-motive) - this can be achieved subjectively (via) strangers / 1-nightstand(s), / infatuation / _et al._ By ''deep'' emotional connection - there is nothing 'solidly' specified like following sexualities, thus 'deep enough' emotional connection can occur anytime - to _engage_ in sexual arousal or horniness. This renders (i.e., the label) - _useless_ - and ''meaningful'' for the former.

Aside from ''busted'' hook-up(s) in motel rooms (via) Anonymous™ Gindr's - a ''negotation'' of trust, still must be implemented.

Thus, how would an aware Demisexual™ ''approach'' someone for _romantic_ interest outside of ''online'' / ''emotional'' connection + dating .. (?) How does ''sexual attraction'' develop without innate ''attraction'' - if a one is ''aesthetically'' attracted to another individual, is it safe to say, they ''approach'' (X) individual out of ''future / inuitive / innate'' attraction that 'sexual' attraction may soon occur .. Thus, 'sexual' attraction is still _subconsciously_ implemented .. (?)


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

I don't think demisexuality exists, just because as the OP says, it's normal not to experience sexual attraction towards complete strangers. I've never heard someone describe a total stranger as "hot" or express the desire to have sex with a total stranger. I've literally never heard of that. I think the vast majority of people would have to know someone for years before they could even determine if they found the person attractive or not. And maybe not even then. I for one certainly can't look at a stranger and determine if I find them attractive, and I'm not demisexual, I'm just normal. This is also why I don't think "asexuality" exists. Most people would be considered "asexual". It's a meaningless distinction.


You raise a good point though OP:



Sporadic Aura said:


> It is common to want to develop emotional connections with people before having sex with them, it's also common to have your attraction to someone increase over time once you get to know them more and gain a stronger emotional connection. Those traits don't mean you need a unique label for your sexuality. Also there really isn't anyone who only feels attraction after a strong emotional bond is made, every single person I've seen who describes themselves as demisexual I've also seen make at least some comments about people they don't know or just met (like..."they're hot" for example).


It is common to to have sex with the opposite sex, it is also common to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Those traits don't mean you need a unique label for your sexuality. Also there really isn't anyone who only feels attraction to the opposite sex, every single person I've seen who describes themselves as heterosexual I've also seen make at least some comments about people of the same sex (like..."they're hot" for example).

It didn't occur to me on first reading (hence the edit of this post) but I'm highly suspicious of most self-proclaimed "heterosexuals" too - most of them are probably bisexual or outright gay but pretend to be heterosexual. True heterosexuals don't find people of the same sex "hot" or "cute" - even occasionally. If you have occasional "exceptions" like that, you're bisexual. It is the same with the "demisexuals" you describe - they're clearly just normal.




katemess said:


> Yep. Someone I know labels herself "demisexual, panromantic"... what the actual fuck?


I know, right? Someone I know labels herself "heterosexual" and "heteroromantic" - ugh, it's ridiculous the labels people will come up with just to feel special! :crazy:


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I think it is possible some people label themselves demisexual but confuse it with introversion. I talked about this with an INTP friend, because we both took this quiz online (http://lonerwolf.com/demisexual-test/) and scored as borderline/low-range of demisexual. He was taking it a little more seriously than I was, thinking "wow maybe I really am demisexual", but I was telling him how I didn't even know how to answer a lot of the questions. I mean, just because you think society over-sexualizes things doesn't mean you're demisexual. I think society overdoes a lot of (sensory-based pleasure) things, but that doesn't mean I don't experience the same interests or I'm opposed to them. (Drinking, for example). It is like the test was trying to inflate the scores based on irrelevant beliefs.

I personally can't distinguish my own romantic and sexual attraction (though an "emotional connection" can make it a more "heated" attraction), but I don't need to feel an emotional connection or anything to experience sexual attraction. It is a personal preference though that I go with the more "heated" attractions (which includes things like personality and value compatibilty), as there seems to be something more interesting there. If you talk to enough introverts there is a pattern along those lines, but it is not an inherent sexual "orientation" in the same way as ****/bi/heterosexual etc. are. It is more of a preference of "when to act on one's sex drive" the same way introverts tend to filter out when it is worthwhile to interact with others on a social level. Thus I am always a bit more skeptical when someone who is very introverted claims to be demisexual. And I wouldn't be surprised if a greater number of introverts identify as such in the first place.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

kaleidoscope said:


> How does me calling myself a demisexual impact your life though? What I choose to label myself as has absolutely no effect on you. It absolutely baffles me how much people police others and their sexuality. Just, why?


I would like to see an answer to this as well, and also ask why the need to create this thread in the first place?


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

@kaleidoscope



kaleidoscope said:


> How does me calling myself a demisexual impact your life though? What I choose to label myself as has absolutely no effect on you.





Metalize said:


> I would like to see an answer to this as well, and also ask why the need to create this thread in the first place?


But it does affect me, though. I now need to learn a new term such as "demisexual" and attempt to understand someone else's life experiences that are outside of my own. IOW, I have to think outside my worldview instead of automatically dismissing things I don't already understand. I have to express curiosity and interest, which is difficult. I prefer to stay within my worldview and not even risk accidentally expanding it.

I agreed with the OP that demisexuality is not real, but she didn't thank my post! :shocked: I am offended! =(


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

counterintuitive said:


> But it does affect me, though. I now need to learn a new term such as "demisexual" and attempt to understand someone else's life experiences that are outside of my own. IOW, I have to think outside my worldview instead of automatically dismissing things I don't already understand. I have to express curiosity and interest, which is difficult. I prefer to stay within my worldview and not even risk accidentally expanding it.


Oh, the horror. I didn't realize I was making everyone around me do these horrible things.. I feel like shit now. 

Now I'm imagining people who hear I'm demisexual going:



















I'm so sorry everyone. I didn't realize the label I chose for myself was causing you so much distress.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

I really can't understand why in such days and age we still need to create labels for just about everything. If you think about it it's a perpetual high school cycle. Society being the bully, offended people in their corner creating labels to feel good about themselves, and your open minded aliens on their bench simply preaching to accept who you are while not really giving a damn about it all.

Sexuality isn't really complex. People's psyche make it so in order to define their own kind of being in the mass. In the end we're all a ball of love, we re all the same energy, we can marvel at having a true kind of identity but ... that will never happen.

Universe itself could say "hey guys stop your bullshit about labels for two seconds and do an epiphany about humanity", it still wouldn't happen lol. But what could be expected in the tumblr era ? in the SJW era ? nothing more I guess. Sad ? yes, sad


----------



## ageek007 (Feb 26, 2016)

So lets start of with this, the whole argument about the duality of labels and whether they should or shouldn't exist is not the point, the question of the existence of Demisexuality is; go create a properly titled thread (if one doesn't exist) for that specific discussion please.

Now as far as the existence of demisexuality goes, I would find it to be more correctly used as a orientation descriptor than an actual orientation itself. That being said I firmly believe demisexuality does exist because I identify under that label in order to attempt to get the concept across to other individuals.
The existence of my sexuality is far removed from the rest of my personality; it does not subconsciously pervade my being. For me to get in touch with my sexuality either requires significant conscious effort on my part or is accessed indirectly by my feelings and emotions in regards to the individual. Feelings and emotions which only appears after months of knowing said individual. I am literally incapable of looking at another individuals body in a sexual light, only aesthetic.

The difficulty of demisexuality is that it's existence is defined by the absence of an abstract concept, i.e. the individual is _incapable_ of being sexually aroused by another's _physica_l traits.
The "dubious" existence is further exacerbated by the fact that anyone who is not demisexual has no point of reference. I might be able to give you analogies but at the end of the day you will never truly get it. It's along the same lines of a gay person telling a straight person what it's like to be gay.

The INFP summery:
A: It is a thing. Just because an individual doesn't get it doesn't make it's existence any less real, especially because it is an abstract fabrication of feelings. It exists as a thought/idea/concept and because someone out there came up with the idea it automatically is a thing, if only in theory at the very least.
B: How an individual identifies themselves is their business, and nobody needs to subscribe to another individual's limited viewpoint just because they don't agree. The converse is also always true as well, no one needs to subscribe to another's labels or definitions either; the entire basis of all of this is purely a subjective artificial construct and will always be subjected to the duality of defining a concept; i.e. by defining a concept you will always define what it isn't. Also different strokes for different folks and YMMV applies.
And C. This thread just attempted to invalidate something i use to attempt to better define myself, so screw you guys  How's about i go bashing on gender neutrality for a while because i don't understand it therefore it must not be a thing (for the love of god take this statement with a grain of salt because it is largely a joke)


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

There are people who will engage in sex without having an emotional connection to the person whatsoever. That's essentially what a one night stand is in most cases. Opposite to this, there are individuals who have zero interest in sex unless there is an emotional bond. Sex is something emotional, not physical. Most people are somewhere in the middle of this. I don't see where the contradiction is here.



Sporadic Aura said:


> It is common to want to develop emotional connections with people before having sex with them, it's also common to have your attraction to someone increase over time once you get to know them more and gain a stronger emotional connection.


True.



> Those traits don't mean you need a unique label for your sexuality.


I'd agree, but that's not what demisexuality is.



> Also there really isn't anyone who only feels attraction after a strong emotional bond is made


That's an argument from ignorance. I do not experience any sexual attraction to a person without strong emotional bonding. Even then, my sexual interactions with the individual are oriented toward vicarious living: any sexual acts I engage in are purely emotional where I derive my enjoyment from their satisfaction. I'm not saying I'm demisexual. I'm a lot closer to asexual than anything else, and so I tend to label myself as such for convenience, but I certainly don't fit into your "there really isn't anyone" description. So, there is someone. I make one. I'm sure there are others, but one is all you need to break the argument.



> every single person I've seen who describes themselves as demisexual I've also seen make at least some comments about people they don't know or just met (like..."they're hot" for example).


Physical attraction need not include sexual desire. Additionally, finding someone attractive does not even necessarily include romantic desire.



> it's just a pretentious term people use to try distinguish themselves.


Whether the term is justifiable or not, there are many people who use it sincerely. Even if there were only one person to use the term sincerely, it doesn't warrant you writing everyone off as pretentious. _That's_ pretentious. Debating the logic of a particular term and presuming to know the sincerity of all individuals using that term are two different things.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

counterintuitive said:


> Because demisexuals "[feel] sexual attraction only to people with whom they have an emotional bond."
> Whereas normally sexual people like you and I feel sexual attraction to complete strangers with whom we do not have an emotional bond.


I don't really feel sexual attractions to strangers, I want to have an emotional connection with them. Or maybe I feel attraction but only slight and definitely not willing to engage in anything sexual unless I have feelings for them, or know them for an adequate amount of time.
Why is demisexuality a different sexual orientation and not just a more intense version of what I experience?


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I don't really feel sexual attractions to strangers, I want to have an emotional connection with them. Or maybe I feel attraction but only slight and definitely not willing to engage in anything sexual unless I have feelings for them, or know them for an adequate amount of time.
> Why is demisexuality a different sexual orientation and not just a more intense version of what I experience?


It's all a sliding scale anyway. If you don't experience sexual attraction to strangers, you fit the definition of demisexuality. If you don't choose to identify as a demisexual, though, then don't.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

counterintuitive said:


> Uh, well, demisexuality isn't about actually having or not having sex without emotional bonding. If you experience sexual _attraction_ without emotional bonding, as I do, then you're not demisexual. It doesn't have anything to do with if you actually have sex or not.


Oh, I know. I just mean that I have never had much reason to care whether someone is technically demisexual or not because I'm not going to be moving to a physical relationship quickly regardless. Actually between my fiance and I, if one of us is/was more demisexual, it probably is/was me. He recounts that the first thing that attracted him to me was my body. I remember first liking him for his work ethic and interesting conversation. I suppose if I were to have been asked, I would have said I found his body decently attractive, but I just didn't think about it much at all until maybe a month of two in, after we had some minor contact like bumping into one another and hand-holding. 

I think all in all I find attraction more complex than "demisexuality" gets at. I can think that someone's body would be pleasing to have sex with but that doesn't necessarily mean I am attracted to them. I can be attracted to someone I wouldn't necessarily think would be very pleasing to have sex with. And 100 variations on it all. 



Temperance said:


> Or "Acceptance in Society: Just Do What You Do and Don't Give It Dumb Labels."


I am SO for this. Sometimes I think labels make things worse. The more we label, the easier it is to pre-judge based on labels. The less we label, the more we have to rely only on our inherent, present-time responses, and the less we are able to load concepts with cultural and philosophical baggage.


----------



## McFluff (Feb 17, 2016)

counterintuitive said:


> Well, that's why I clarified.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We were obviously on different wavelengths from the start. I'm not saying that demisexuality doesn't exist (as you are) - I don't have the same mindset as the 7.1 billion other people have on this goddamn Earth, so I can't say that it doesn't fucking exist. There could be people that simply don't find strangers sexually attractive - I'm sorry, the population is fucking huge and variable and you can't completely nix a concept_ based on your and the OPs experiences (no matter how broad they may be; there can be an exception)!_

My initial point was that making a whole new fucking label for this concept is absolutely unnecessary as* nobody in the real world fucking cares!*


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

McFluff said:


> We were obviously on different wavelengths from the start. I'm not saying that demisexuality doesn't exist (as you are) - I don't have the same mindset as the 7.1 billion other people have on this goddamn Earth, so I can't say that it doesn't fucking exist. There could be people that simply don't find strangers sexually attractive - I'm sorry, the population is fucking huge and variable and you can't completely nix a concept_ based on your and the OPs experiences (no matter how broad they may be; there can be an exception)!_
> 
> My initial point was that making a whole new fucking label for this concept is absolutely unnecessary as* nobody in the real world fucking cares!*


Lol. "No one cares!" is not an argument. :crazy:

And as I've said, I would care very much, as I wouldn't want to accidentally date a demisexual person.

You seem to keep saying the same things over and over again without actually reading what has been said by me or by others in this thread. So I'm not sure what point there is in continuing to engage with you. I'm not sure what your problem is, but you're clearly either not reading or not understanding what is being said to you. Oh well.




angelfish said:


> Oh, I know. I just mean that I have never had much reason to care whether someone is technically demisexual or not because I'm not going to be moving to a physical relationship quickly regardless. Actually between my fiance and I, if one of us is/was more demisexual, it probably is/was me. He recounts that the first thing that attracted him to me was my body. I remember first liking him for his work ethic and interesting conversation. I suppose if I were to have been asked, I would have said I found his body decently attractive, but I just didn't think about it much at all until maybe a month of two in, after we had some minor contact like bumping into one another and hand-holding.
> 
> I think all in all I find attraction more complex than "demisexuality" gets at. I can think that someone's body would be pleasing to have sex with but that doesn't necessarily mean I am attracted to them. I can be attracted to someone I wouldn't necessarily think would be very pleasing to have sex with. And 100 variations on it all.


Ah, alright, I misunderstood you earlier then. Thanks for the clarification. roud:

And since you mention fiance: congrats!


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Entropic said:


> @_counterintuitive_ , yes, that's correct. I don't feel sexual attraction to strangers or people I have just recently met. I don't filter people's bodies that way in my mind.
> 
> I don't understand why people find it so suspect. On the one hand they claim everyone needs some emotional connection before wanting to have sex but on the other hand everyone should feel some sexual attraction just by seeing another person's body like wtf? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> *Demisexuality is a sexual orientation because describes the conditions on which your attraction must operate on; just like hetero/bi/**** describe the conditions of attraction as well. If you are a heterosexual woman, you get off on certain physical characteristics as opposed to a heterosexual man.*


I could be wrong about demisexuality but this partly explains why I don't consider demisexuality to be a distinct sexual orientation. The conditions under which sexual attraction flourishes is not the same as the actual orientation of sexual attraction. Hetero/****/bi-sexual tells people what kind of people you are attracted to, demisexuality seems to either imply that you're sexually attracted to minds and not bodies (which is hard for me to understand because how do you want to engage in a physical activity as an end based on completely non-physical characteristics) or you're attracted to people under the condition of having developed an emotional connection to them. I don't understand why any demisexual would identify as gay or straight if physical attributes are fundamentally unimportant.

I think that there's an inherent psychological aspect to sexual attraction, I think affection is a part of it, but I don't think they necessarily need an emotional connection prior to or independent of any sexual attraction, even if they would prefer it when it comes to who they actually have sex with. I could be wrong.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ubuntu said:


> I could be wrong about demisexuality but this partly explains why I don't consider demisexuality to be a distinct sexual orientation. The conditions under which sexual attraction flourishes is not the same as the actual orientation of sexual attraction. Hetero/****/bi-sexual tells people what kind of people you are attracted to, demisexuality seems to either imply that you're sexually attracted to minds and not bodies (which is hard for me to understand because how do you want to engage in a physical activity as an end based on completely non-physical characteristics) or you're attracted to people under the condition of having developed an emotional connection to them. I don't understand why any demisexual would identify as gay or straight if physical attributes are fundamentally unimportant.


Some people are hetero/bi/homoromantic. It's more based on gender then, though it can also be based on bodies. 



> I think that there's an inherent psychological aspect to sexual attraction, I think affection is a part of it, but I don't think they necessarily need an emotional connection prior to or independent of any sexual attraction, even if they would prefer it when it comes to who they actually have sex with. I could be wrong.


No, not everyone experiences it that way evidently, since as @Clyme noted, one-night-stands do not operate on this criterion. It's sufficient to find someone you think is attractive enough and begin to bang their guts out because you feel like it.

I don't experience it that way. I could never have a one-night-stand and it's not due to shyness; I'm extremely socially assertive as an individual and have never suffered social anxiety or the like. It's more just the idea of having sex with someone that way which repulses me. It would feel good I suppose, but I would have a zero boner and it just doesn't feel meaningful at any level whatsoever.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

I'm Importantsexual


----------



## McFluff (Feb 17, 2016)

counterintuitive said:


> Lol. "No one cares!" is not an argument. :crazy:
> 
> And as I've said, I would care very much, as I wouldn't want to accidentally date a demisexual person.
> 
> ...


If you're throwing in the towel, I'm assuming that you've found holes in your argument that you simply don't want to acknowledge. I honestly do want to learn from this, so bear with me if I seem incompetent. 

From you:
"I don't think demisexuality exists, just because as the OP says, it's normal not to experience sexual attraction towards complete strangers. I've never heard someone describe a total stranger as "hot" or express the desire to have sex with a total stranger. I've literally never heard of that. I think the vast majority of people would have to know someone for years before they could even determine if they found the person attractive or not. And maybe not even then. I for one certainly can't look at a stranger and determine if I find them attractive, and I'm not demisexual, I'm just normal. This is also why I don't think "asexuality" exists. Most people would be considered "asexual". It's a meaningless distinction."

In a couple posts back, I said, "Also, people can want to bang a complete stranger - have you seen those YouTube videos where a random girl asks a stranger if he wants to fuck her or not? A good amount of guys accept her advances." 






As you can see by the video, almost 50/50 want to bang/not bang. You can't say that it's normal, based on your experiences - you don't know how billions of other people live their life. Demisexuality is a thing. As stated by you, "it's normal not to experience sexual attraction towards complete strangers." Well, proof is in the pudding. 


Another thing you said:
"True heterosexuals don't find people of the same sex "hot" or "cute" - even occasionally. If you have occasional "exceptions" like that, you're bisexual. It is the same with the "demisexuals" you describe - they're clearly just normal."

Like I said in response, "I can tell a girl that she has a great body, but I don't turn into a hornball and want to fuck her. It's just aesthetic appreciation." I'm not bisexual because I find a girl cute - again, aesthetic appreciation. You can realize that males/females can find that girl cute, but you don't want to bang her or whatever.

Aesthetically appreciating someone is not equal to sexual attraction; therefore, it isn't equal to sexual feeling. You likened heterosexuality to demisexuality. 

Here's what I'm capturing from you:
I. Demisexuality doesn't exist; it is normal. Look above.
II. Person A (Demisexual) says that someone B is sexually attractive = A is sexually attracted to B - therefore, A is not a demisexual as they have sexual feelings towards Person B. (You likened demisexuality to heterosexuality in your first post.)
III. People who call themselves demisexual are just labeling themselves to feel special.

Tell me if I have your points wrong. I don't feel as though I do. 


My response as to nobody cares was to the fact that this shit actually has a label associated with it. Before you tell me to read your posts, read mine, because you obviously aren't.


----------



## Starry Eyed (Jan 15, 2016)

Eh, whatever floats people's boats. To me I see it as a need to fit in with others and to feel validated that they are 'normal' rather than 'special'

People do indeed what to bang strangers, let' use other experiences than yours as a marker OP.

Technically I am demisexual but I don't particularly care or identify with the label, some do yay for them yay for me. The question of its existence needs to be put to rest. There are many different types people in the world. 

^McFluff summed it up well


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

What Psyduck said


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

While I feel like people who feel some variation of this exist, I also feel like it'd just be faster to say, "Hey, I'm not into random people I see" if the topic is relevant than making up some pretentious term to add to your snowflake wordlist. Most people would have to have it explained to them anyway, save yourself some breath.


----------



## Graveyard (Oct 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> And the problem is the bolded - not everyone experience physical attraction to be the main way to be sexually attracted to someone. I don't, for example. Arguing biology is fallacious because it is as true that my experiences are a result of biology and that human social development is a part of our biological evolution. You're creating a false dichotomy.
> 
> The true nature of sex is that sex is one of the most common ways to be intimate with members of the same species and therefore fulfills an _emotional_ role. Studies of tribal societies such as hunter-gatherer ones have shown that rarely is sex done solely for the sake of procreation, but sex is often had as a way to (emotionally) bond with another person.
> 
> Human emotions are a part of our biology too. We have developed brains with complex emotional neurochemical reactions of which physical intimacy that sex is a part of, plays a large part.


Hm, I don't know. I can't fathom the idea of someone not feeling sexually attracted to people unless they have a special bond - I mean, it doesn't sound bad at first, but then that contradicts the whole "you don't choose who you're attracted to" thingie. Or maybe not, I'm not sure. 

I can't help but to believe the whole demisexuality deal is but a wrong way to see your actual sexuality. Like, some sort of trauma going on, or a low sex drive.

I also know humans have sex most of the time to fulfill an emotional role, and I also am aware of tribes and ancient cultures believing that sex is the ultimate bond between humans - Aphrodite is my favourite goddess for a reason! But to be sexully attracted to people _because_ you have a bond... Doesn't really click to me.

The "I can't fathom the idea of someone being attracted to" is a common argument used against homosexuality, yes, but unlike sapio, demi and other new sexualities, I _can_ see myself attracted to women (hetero), to both of them (bi), or to none (a). But the others... I don't know man. 

Could you please give insight, or is it too private to share?


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Graveyard said:


> Hm, I don't know. I can't fathom the idea of someone not feeling sexually attracted to people unless they have a special bond - I mean, it doesn't sound bad at first, but then that contradicts the whole "you don't choose who you're attracted to" thingie. Or maybe not, I'm not sure.
> 
> I can't help but to believe the whole demisexuality deal is but a wrong way to see your actual sexuality. Like, some sort of trauma going on, or a low sex drive.


Maybe it's just that their sex drive needs to be triggered in a different way. It's been demonstrated in sex studies that women tend to experience arousal before desire - I think it's been called responsive arousal. So perhaps until someone is emotionally close enough, there's little desire, but as the pleasant interactions take place, arousal occurs, and triggers desire.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Graveyard said:


> Hm, I don't know. I can't fathom the idea of someone not feeling sexually attracted to people unless they have a special bond - I mean, it doesn't sound bad at first, but then that contradicts the whole "you don't choose who you're attracted to" thingie. Or maybe not, I'm not sure.
> 
> I can't help but to believe the whole demisexuality deal is but a wrong way to see your actual sexuality. Like, some sort of trauma going on, or a low sex drive.
> 
> ...


Essentially, I just don't feel sexual attraction to people I am not close to, especially in a romantic way. I don't choose who I am attracted to, I just work that way, for the same reason gays work that way. Also, I'm not straight, so I can't explain how that works for other people who also may experience themselves as straight, gay or bi and demisexual (those people exist). For me, anyway, demisexuality seems to work out that as long I have a romantic bonding with the person I feel sexually attracted to them. Exactly who they and their bodies are doesn't seem to play any real role in my physical attraction.

And evidently sexual people can have sex without an emotional bond; again, that's what one-night-stands are, or hell, even friends with benefits and the plethora of terms that describe the same phenomenon. You aren't bonded then, you probably have no real emotional connection in that sense at all, but yet you fuck. I don't understand that either. If I fuck someone, it's because I love them.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

After reading through this thread.. I'll say, I am very impressed by the responses.

On one hand, we have one group totally opposed to the term demisexual. In the other camp, we have those who are totally unopposed.

I see the term as harmless, and more of an exploratory word for understanding that sexuality exists on a continuum with certain variables for each individual.

It is more of a scientific way of understanding human sexual behavior. Similar to how heterosexuality and homosexuality exists on opposite ends, where you meet in the middle are also variations as to those who prefer monogamy vs. those who do not.

Demisexuality is another way to look at a variant that exists beyond the standard conventional view of understanding sex, from a scientific stand point. 

Isn't it more pretentious to disqualify that certain possibilities do exist, even if it is not generally accepted by the norm?


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

kaleidoscope said:


> It also really bothers me how much people resent labels and don't even try to approach it from a place of curiosity and open mindedness.


That, so very that.

I believe it's overused in places by people who have not experienced their sexuality much or at all, and occasionally by those who moralise it as an altruistic choice (although I see that thrown about more by people who dislike the term and think someone is looking down on them for not being demisexual), however, my issue with people dismissing it as something that does not exist is that it's always based on the presumption that others must experience sexual attraction the same way they do. If someone tells you they experience something in a different manner, the intellectual curious way to proceed is to seek to understand how and why. Not caring about it is one thing, calling it BS is lazy.

I say this as someone who dislikes the label. The only time I use it is when attempting to explain to partners how my attraction differs from theirs as typically their presumption is that I experience attraction the same way they do, so it creates a distinct point of difference. 

So to those who object, ignoring the label, if you do not believe that people can be devoid of primary sexual attraction, that is being sexually attracted to someone they have not developed a bond with, then others in this thread have already shown that is an incorrect assumption. What other objection is there?




> Sure, it is. But as a demisexual, without that connection, I don't experience any kind of attraction. Simple as that.


I'd say that when it comes to people I haven't interacted with and developed an attraction to their personality, I may as well be asexual. And yet I have a high sex drive, so am not.




counterintuitive said:


> I've never heard someone describe a total stranger as "hot" or express the desire to have sex with a total stranger. I've literally never heard of that. I think the vast majority of people would have to know someone for years before they could even determine if they found the person attractive or not.


Years? I don't know what kinds of people you're interacting with, if they're adolescents fine, otherwise they are not average.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Some people are hetero/bi/homoromantic. It's more based on gender then, though it can also be based on bodies.


I don't think gender has any meaning for me beyond physical attributes that distinguish men from women. The psychological differences that tend to distinguish men from women (and the social roles assigned to maleness and femaleness) aren't inherently gendered, in my opinion.





> No, not everyone experiences it that way evidently, since as @_Clyme_ noted, one-night-stands do not operate on this criterion. It's sufficient to find someone you think is attractive enough and begin to bang their guts out because you feel like it.
> 
> I don't experience it that way. I could never have a one-night-stand and it's not due to shyness; I'm extremely socially assertive as an individual and have never suffered social anxiety or the like. It's more just the idea of having sex with someone that way which repulses me. It would feel good I suppose, but I would have a zero boner and it just doesn't feel meaningful at any level whatsoever.


It may be that not everyone experiences sexual attraction as I've described it, although it's very hard for me to imagine anyone who didn't feel some kind of affection for or some kind of psychological connection and intimacy with someone they were attracted to or had actual sex with (I can't imagine why a man would not prefer to have sex with a real conscious woman over a perfectly life like human doll) but I don't think one night stands necessarily exemplify that. Under certain conditions I could easily have sex with a complete stranger but it's not because I don't associate attraction with affection (although the idea of using sex as an _expression_ of affection personally bores me). I could have a crush on a complete stranger, I could feel platonic affection for a complete stranger, I could 'feel sorry for' and sympathize with a complete stranger. Sex doesn't have to be 'meaningful' for me, it's just playful, fun, affectionate activity.

I don't want to assert with confidence that demisexuality doesn't exist (and either way I don't understand the 'pretentious special snowflake' accusation. Self-identified demisexuals aren't fucking with me in any so why would I resent them). I'm just being honest about the fact that I can't make sense of it and I don't understand how it could work, wanting to have physical contact as an end goal for reasons that have nothing to do with physical attraction (and if it's not as an end goal then can you really have a 'sex drive' per se ?).


----------



## Graveyard (Oct 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Essentially, I just don't feel sexual attraction to people I am not close to, especially in a romantic way. I don't choose who I am attracted to, I just work that way, for the same reason gays work that way. Also, I'm not straight, so I can't explain how that works for other people who also may experience themselves as straight, gay or bi and demisexual (those people exist). For me, anyway, demisexuality seems to work out that as long I have a romantic bonding with the person I feel sexually attracted to them. Exactly who they and their bodies are doesn't seem to play any real role in my physical attraction.
> 
> And evidently sexual people can have sex without an emotional bond; again, that's what one-night-stands are, or hell, even friends with benefits and the plethora of terms that describe the same phenomenon. You aren't bonded then, you probably have no real emotional connection in that sense at all, but yet you fuck. I don't understand that either. If I fuck someone, it's because I love them.


So how a person looks doesn't affect your sexual attraction towards them. Alright, that's something I cannot relate to. I don't mean to come off as shallow, but I do have preferences. But my range is so wide, I wouldn't say I'm looking for a specific kind of man. Even so, some things as off-putting. That'd be the main difference?

Also, would you be equally attracted to a man if you develop an emotional bond with him?

I didn't mean to imply _all_ sexual relationships have an emotional component. I know people can go around having sex with everything they see, and actually, I do know people like that irl. There's nothing wrong with that, really.



angelfish said:


> Maybe it's just that their sex drive needs to be triggered in a different way. It's been demonstrated in sex studies that women tend to experience arousal before desire - I think it's been called responsive arousal. So perhaps until someone is emotionally close enough, there's little desire, but as the pleasant interactions take place, arousal occurs, and triggers desire.


Hm, put that way, it doesn't sound like a crazy idea. Buttt I'm not sure still..

I'd have to give it a thought, though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ubuntu said:


> I don't think gender has any meaning for me beyond physical attributes that distinguish men from women. The psychological differences that tend to distinguish men from women (and the social roles assigned to maleness and femaleness) aren't inherently gendered, in my opinion.


What do you mean aren't inherently gendered? 



> It may be that not everyone experiences sexual attraction as I've described it, although it's very hard for me to imagine anyone who didn't feel some kind of affection for or some kind of psychological connection and intimacy with someone they were attracted to or had actual sex with (I can't imagine why a man would not prefer to have sex with a real conscious woman over a perfectly life like human doll) but I don't think one night stands necessarily exemplify that. Under certain conditions I could easily have sex with a complete stranger but it's not because I don't associate attraction with affection (although the idea of using sex as an _expression_ of affection personally bores me). I could have a crush on a complete stranger, I could feel platonic affection for a complete stranger, I could 'feel sorry for' and sympathize with a complete stranger. Sex doesn't have to be 'meaningful' for me, it's just playful, fun, affectionate activity.
> 
> I don't want to assert with confidence that demisexuality doesn't exist (and either way I don't understand the 'pretentious special snowflake' accusation. Self-identified demisexuals aren't fucking with me in any so why would I resent them). I'm just being honest about the fact that I can't make sense of it and I don't understand how it could work, wanting to have physical contact as an end goal for reasons that have nothing to do with physical attraction (and if it's not as an end goal then can you really have a 'sex drive' per se ?).


Yeah, I don't experience attraction that way. To me attraction is intrinsically linked with the emotional connection I have towards someone else, and sex is always an expression of that connection. Also, I do have a sex drive since I need to regularly jerk off, but I rather do it alone than with someone I have no emotional connection to, because then it's not experienced as meaningful. 



Graveyard said:


> So how a person looks doesn't affect your sexual attraction towards them. Alright, that's something I cannot relate to. I don't mean to come off as shallow, but I do have preferences. But my range is so wide, I wouldn't say I'm looking for a specific kind of man. Even so, some things as off-putting. That'd be the main difference?


In my experience, I've always been attracted to the person I've been romantically invested in and it doesn't matter how they look. There's no connection between them either. I tend to look for personality qualities in the people I'm attracted to, not looks per se. 



> Also, would you be equally attracted to a man if you develop an emotional bond with him?


Seeing how my prior partners have all been men: yes.


----------

