# Demisexual Hate.



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Has anybody else noticed how, initially, a lot of people have a negative reaction to the Demisexual orientation?

Here is a list of common misconceptions I've found:

- We're sexually repressed/unhealthy.

- Seeing as some straight people do exclusively have sex within the confines of a relationship, it isn't a valid orientation. 

- It's a phase people go through for attention.

- We identify out to 'jealousy' of the 'attention' gay/bi/trans people get. 

- (my personal favorite) We identify as a means of looking down on promiscuous people.

Thoughts on this? Any other misconceptions you'd like to add? Do you agree with any of these points?


----------



## TerracottaStarfish (Dec 29, 2012)

I've been confused about my sexuality for two years. I clicked on this and I thought "what's demi-sexual"? I read the description and my jaw literally dropped. There's a name for it! THANK YOU SO MUCH YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH THIS MEANS TO ME ^_^

THANK YOU


----------



## qingdom (Apr 5, 2011)

instantaneous gratification.

sex now! yes/no?

maybe/perhaps, unacceptable response.

result: demisexual woes.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

TerracottaStarfish said:


> I've been confused about my sexuality for two years. I clicked on this and I thought "what's demi-sexual"? I read the description and my jaw literally dropped. There's a name for it! THANK YOU SO MUCH YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH THIS MEANS TO ME ^_^
> 
> THANK YOU


Same - I only discovered demisexuality through this website. 

For others confused: Demisexuality is the inability to experience primary sexual attraction, or attraction to a persons physical traits alone. A demi person will not feel sexually attracted until they have established an emotional bond with someone (secondary sexual attraction/romantic attraction).

Personally, I think more awareness of niche orientations need to be made - aged 16, I would loved to have known such a thing exists. Demisexual with asthetic attraction to women is not pretty to figure out, I tells ya!


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I made some blog posts on it not too long ago... it seems many people feel threatened by it...


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Falling Leaves said:


> Same - I only discovered demisexuality through this website.
> 
> For others confused: Demisexuality is the inability to experience primary sexual attraction, or attraction to a persons physical traits alone. A demi person will not feel sexually attracted until they have established an emotional bond with someone (secondary sexual attraction/romantic attraction).
> 
> Personally, I think more awareness of niche orientations need to be made - aged 16, I would loved to have known such a thing exists. Demisexual with asthetic attraction to women is not pretty to figure out, I tells ya!


i just recently had his explained to me. It still confuses me though, to he honest. As a demisexual, are you attracted to both sexes, the opposite sex only or the same sex only? Or all of the above(as in...you can be gay, straight or bi and be demisexual)? 

I guess my confusion is, I know many people(more woman) like this. Maybe this is to an extreme though? I am certainly more attracted once there's a personal connection, but I can be sexually attracted without. 

I'm curious...does it change what you think about when you...ya know....

p.s. I am not being rude...I am legitimately curious.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

JaySH said:


> i just recently had his explained to me. It still confuses me though, to he honest. As a demisexual, are you attracted to both sexes, the opposite sex only or the same sex only? Or all of the above(as in...you can be gay, straight or bi and be demisexual)?


Demisexuals can be straight/gay/bi - demisexuality only describes the situations where you feel sexual attraction, it does nothing to dictate your preferences. 

Personally, I associate as a hetero demi. 



> I guess my confusion is, I know many people(more woman) like this. Maybe this is to an extreme though? I am certainly more attracted once there's a personal connection, but I can be sexually attracted without.


I think, statistically at least, the demi women outnumber the men. 

Most people _do _feel a surge in sexual attraction with an emotional connection. Understandably, it's where some of the confusion lies; people wrongly assume that we choose to only act on secondary sexual attraction, and that, by proxy at least, 'anybody' can be demi. Not true - you can only class yourself as such if you have a complete physical inability to experience primary sexual attraction.

Demisexuality is* NOT* only having sex with people who you are close to. 



> I'm curious...does it change what you think about when you...ya know....
> 
> p.s. I am not being rude...I am legitimately curious.


To be honest, I'm not sure if I can answer that - not because I'm embarrassed, but I'm not sure what it could have changed from. I mean, what's 'normal' to fantasize about anyway? Besides, seeing as I can only speak for myself, I sincerely doubt my answer would be representative.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm ignorant. Enlighten me.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

I can't say I've noticed a lot, but I have heard a few people (at least one) call it a psychological dysfunction and say there is no biological evidence for it as if saying a lack of "hard evidence" for it is the same as saying that is evidence against it ... which would be a logical fallacy (well, they did say that it apparently is not seen in other animals, although I don't know if it was looked for in other animals and other animals are not as emotionally complex as people ... not to mention we do have evidence that some people are demisexual ... maybe not hard neuroscientific evidence, but there is a lot about the brain we don't understand), not to mention, I see no valid reason to deny someone else's experiences (even if biology said it was impossible, maybe it is wrong, or maybe it isn't ... we are not all knowing ... and I think it is important to let people identify with something that matches their own experiences). ... Not to mention, if there are people who are asexual, why can't there be people who only experience secondary sexual attraction? I see no reason why not ... That being said, ever since I learned about demi-sexuality (which I don't know a lot about it), I have wondered if there are people who only feel primary sexual attraction? Well, I did wonder, but then I forgot that question until I read this thread.

Now, on the flip side of the coin, I have heard people, who identified as demisexual say that it is immoral to choose or reject a partner based on looks. ... I don't think looks matter that much, and don't have to matter at all, but I think calling it immoral is to far as well and I am imagining that this is where that "We identify as a means of looking down on promiscuous people" comes from and/or gets "confirmed" for some people.
Of course I am only talking about a very small percentage of the people I have interacted with that claim to be demi-sexual say that, so it would seem pretty obvious that you should not judge everyone, or even most, of a group for the actions of a small minority (and with those few, I think it is really that they don't understand primary physical attraction because they never experienced it, so they were looking down on it).
That being said, I don't have much room to talk because I do advocated not placing much, if any, importance on looks (perhaps that is because I am pretty sure I experience secondary sexual attraction much stronger than I experience primary sexual attraction ... and maybe I am being a little unfair as well).

I think it would help if we all understood each other a little more, granted, I think the majority does need to make the minority feel welcome as a majority, the people in it are kind of are already accepted by society ... at least in this case they are ... I suppose history and people not talking much about things shows that that was not always the case (such as the majority of women enjoying sex was not always culturally accepted).

Now, I have a question. What part of attraction does a fetish come from? I am assuming people who fetishize body parts, that that comes from primary sexual attraction ... but what about people who are into bondage or whatever? ... Or do fetishes have nothing to do with primary and secondary sexual attraction?


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

I dont hate demisexuals, but I do hate the ones that insult other people, and become defensive of their orientation for no reason.

In the other demisexual thread the demisexuals would, instead of referring to other people as pan/hetero/****/a-sexual, refer to us as "Sexuals".

Example:

"Demisexuals do this; but sexuals do that"


That is pretty offensive considering the fact that ALL hetero, ****, pan, ect.-sexuals do not function in the same way.


I think some of you take the _*perceived*_ exoticism and use that as a reason to put yourself on a pedestal, and lash out at people that disagree with you, on any level.

But that is just my assessment of the demisexuals that came out last time; this is not in any way directed toward you, or any other demisexual that enters this specific thread.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Speaking solely for myself, I don't see why I should care what someone's sexual orientation is unless I'm interested in them as a potential sexual partner (in which case of course it would then become relevant), let alone hate someone for it.


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

Huh. I don't think I even knew about this, or maybe I did but I forgot. But would explain a lot. Like really. That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I don't know what "demisexual" means. I don't hate people just because they're different. I got picked on for being different.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

Falling Leaves said:


> Has anybody else noticed how, initially, a lot of people have a negative reaction to the Demisexual orientation?


Nope, but here is what I do notice:

- It's a popular choice to claim, there is over-claiming imo, not having sexual experience does not make someone asexual or demisexual, when a 16 year old comes out and claims they are demisexual I admit I do roll my eyes, it is not like sexual orientation in this regard.

- There are more than a few non-demisexuals who think it is some kind of altruistic choice to look beyond the surface and deem oneself less shallow for it, that can lead to bashing of those who are demisexual.

- There are those who are demisexual who reverse the above point and claim that their sexuality is superior to anyone who is not demisexual. This sets up us v them shaming.

Mostly the over-claiming part, it seems like a fad to over label some thing when there are plenty of people out there who make the choice to reserve any sexual activity to a long term committed relationship without sexuality being the reason. I do consider it legit, it's just made into something it is not. And when it is overused it creates problems like you mention in the OP.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

I don't get the things you listed as much as I get the "yeah right" sort of thing. People just don't understand it because they haven't been made to really consider it before. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit if they do or not. My orientation is what it is regardless of whether they believe me or not.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

@_tanstaafl28_ You know how when you walk out you sometimes see people who invoke a feeling of sexual attraction? Or how if you see a model on a billboard you'll have a similar response. Demis, like asexuals, experience none of that - to us at least, we'd find a bum off the street no more sexually attractive than Brad Pitt. 

...that is, until we become close to someone. Having once managed the feat of PSA, all I can say is the sexual attraction you feel in these circumstances is... different. I don't know, it's hard to describe. 

@_twm_ I think the term sexual just means 'someone who regularly experiences sexual attraction', hence they are sexual (which applies to all orientations) - I don't believe it's meant with any malicious intent, or to band identities together. That being said, I personally don't use the term sexual because, yes, I do agree it can come off as carrying negative connotations. Better to be safe than sorry in word choice. 

@_Sonny_ (+TWM) I don't believe anybody is sitting here trying to claim that all demis everywhere have never engaged in the behaviors described in the OP, or never acted superior for their demisexuality as was pointed out. For example, there are demis out there who believe people are wrong not to keep it in their pants - however, that trait comes more down to upbringing and personal beliefs.

To say some demisexuals hate sex and are repressed is fair enough, because, believe it or not, some people do hate sex and are repressed. Just like saying some gay men like to bake cakes with mounds of pink frosting, glitter and fondant unicorns is fair enough.

HOWEVER, it's when you take extremely superficial stereotypes and falsely attribute them as because of a sexual identity you begin to cross the line. 

If a gay man were given a range of baking ingredients and told to bake a cake, would the above pastry be the product? I mean, gay men have rejected their masculinity by choosing to engage in sodomy, so it only figures that their attitude to cake would be as such. 

...yeah, that's how ignorant and bigoted you sound when you say that crap about demis. 

If a demi expresses those traits, it's not due to their sexuality - just like how if a gay man bakes a unicorn cake, it's probably just because his nieces 6th birthday is coming up or he likes unicorns, and not because he is gay. 

[although, as a side note, I do agree with your point about people using an identity as a means of validating themselves - this extends to gay/bi/pan/whatever. I grew up in the 00s, where the cool thing to do was to write I'M GAY in obnoxious, hard to read text on your bebo/myspace page :dry:]


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

imma add onto what Sonny and another poster said, l hear the most talk about demisexuals from demisexuals. 

Take from that what you will, l think the perceived prejudice is being exaggerated in an attempt to talk about the topic.

l think a few descriptors on top of gay/bi/pan/straight are fine, if people feel they need or want to be specific for whatever reason.This is a really common trait many people have had and probably handled with their romantic interest privately.

l do not, however consider those descriptors separate orientations. What happens when a person "comes out'' to their parents as demisexual?


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

It sounds brilliant. If everyone was demisexual, I think we'd have a better society. 

I think I might tend towards demisexuality, if only a little. 
But, it's kinda pointless categorising my sexuality when I don't have sex lol.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@Falling Leaves

Thanks for the definition. Does that mean looking at porn, or reading trashy romance novels, does absolutely nothing for demis? There must be an emotional bond prior to sexual attraction?


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> @Falling Leaves
> 
> Thanks for the definition. Does that mean looking at porn, or reading trashy romance novels, does absolutely nothing for demis? There must be an emotional bond prior to sexual attraction?


That's what I was curious about as well...which is why I half asked the awkward question. Your approach is better.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

Falling Leaves said:


> ...yeah, that's how ignorant and bigoted you sound when you say that crap about demis.


I presume that is a tangent response to what was said, not what you took from what I said? Cause if it's the latter then you have missed my point and are being defensive about something you do not need to be defensive about. I was answering the question on why it could happen, that was all.

Apologies if you're 16 and didn't like my eye roll comment, however it is my honest feeling based on my life experience as someone who can relate to aspects of demisexuality, yet am not.



dizzycactus said:


> It sounds brilliant. If everyone was demisexual, I think we'd have a better society.


That only adds to incorrect stereotypes.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Sonny said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> That only adds to incorrect stereotypes.


Well, I can back it up. 

If everyone was demisexual, there would be less promiscuity. 
Promiscuity affects oxytocin levels in the body. This affects the amygdala, causing it to become less active. 
Extremely low amygdala activity results in a state known as psychopathy. A promiscuous society is, as a whole, closer to psychopathy than a more monogamous one.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

People who judge and look down on others sexuality/means of sexual expression, are just insecure about their OWN sexuality.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

killerB said:


> People who judge and look down on others sexuality/means of sexual expression, are just insecure about their OWN sexuality.


what if the sexuality you are looking down upon equates to killing people, chopping them in half and then screwing their intestinal tract? Is it just insecurity to oppose that, too? 

Absolute statements that apply to only arbitrarily and implicitly selected situations are funny.


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

I'm a hetero demisexual. I haven't really received hateful comments based on my sexuality. I look at a guy and I think he's okay but it takes years for me to suddenly realize I may have feelings for him. I've had to explain to guys who have hit on me that it's NOT that they're unattractive or anything like that, I just can't feel attraction to them because I don't know them.

I'm currently dating a "normal" heterosexual and before we dated, I noticed that he would talk about girls he liked a lot more often than I'd mention even a guy friend. I wish I could be so easily attracted. But I think there's a blessing in demisexuality, we make the most devoted partners. :happy:


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Well, I think I am known for not being the sort to judge, so why not ask exactly what some of us are wondering?


----------



## Keli (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm kind of new to the whole demisexual world, as I didn't really know about it until last year. (I seriously thought I was some weird asexual who developed this attraction towards the guy I'm dating. :tongue Don't get me wrong, I've dated different guys, but I just had no interest in sex with them as much as building a very intense and deep relationship, which just scared them away. :frustrating: Even with my current SO, it took me 1.5 to 2 years before I finally developed feelings for him.

But yeah, I haven't gotten any hate. I have had friends comment how odd it was that I wasn't interested even slightly in the supposed super attractive men they were raving about, but eh. I don't really talk about my sexuality either, so yeah. :laughing:


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

I have nothing against Demisexuals,
As I know a few who say they are Demisexual.

My problem is that we in this modern day and age create to many sexualities,
When in reality there are 2 genders(Possibly 3 if you include hermaphrodites),
And therefore the sexualities of Straight, Gay, Asexual(I forgot about that one) and Bisexual cover all bases.

How you fall for the gender you are attracted too,
Is not enough to give it a name.
I do sound very controversial,
But I am willing to listen and change my opinion,
It's just for now I think that we already have enough labels as it is,
So why create more?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

So what sort of hatred are we talking about here? 

I see a deviation that is not like me, perhaps _had not occurred to me_, but I don't see anything worthy of hatred. 

(equal parts curiosity, joy, and bewilderment, perhaps)


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

I've had people congratulate me for it, like I wasn't serious when I told them how my attraction works. They just assumed that it is a moral choice for me
:|


----------



## djqpewpew (Feb 17, 2013)

For me, the same argument that I have for religion applies to this. I don't care if you're Christian, Rastafari, Mormon, Scientologist- whatever. Believe what you want. I'm down to have a two-way conversation, but if you're going to sit there and tell me why my ways are wrong and yours are right- please, respectfully f*ck off.

There is your way and there is my way, but as far as the right way- it does not exist.

For the record (as far as I'm concerned), I have never encountered a demisexual that has bullied me with their beliefs. But on second thought, maybe I have.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> @Falling Leaves
> 
> Thanks for the definition. Does that mean looking at porn, or reading trashy romance novels, does absolutely nothing for demis? There must be an emotional bond prior to sexual attraction?


I want to answer this.

I only recently realized that I fit the description of a demisexual.

Before that, I watched some porn, most of the time it was just like "This is supposed to be a turn-on?", but a couple of times I found an amateur video where the two seemed really into each other, and I enjoyed watching it.

As for 'trashy romance novels' well, I laugh at most trashy romances, but I am an avid reader, and when there is a deep emotional bond between the two characters having sex, yeah, it can be a turn on.

Yes, sex interests me, but only if that emotional bond is present. The act of sex alone does nothing for me.

Anyway, that is just for me.

I don't find being demi-sexual as a huge part of my sexuality, but it does explain why I am different, and why I often feel out of place when other people talk about sex. I mean, sex still interests me, but not in the same way as it does other people.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

Sonny said:


> Nope, but here is what I do notice:
> 
> - It's a popular choice to claim, there is over-claiming imo, not having sexual experience does not make someone asexual or demisexual, when a 16 year old comes out and claims they are demisexual I admit I do roll my eyes, it is not like sexual orientation in this regard.


I once asked a 16/17 year old what her sexuality was (it was relevant to the discussion at hand) and she replied "I am really not sure, I think I might be demisexual". I just wanted to point out that in a case like this, being demisexual could lead to one being uncertain about their sexuality in terms of hetero/bi/****. 

I mean I had always thought I was heterosexual until I was about 17. Now I see myself as being, well I guess the easiest way to explain it is bi with a straight preference. It's more complicated than that, especially when I start thinking about the implications of my being demi-sexual.

Let's just straight up admit that sexuality is complicated and that while 4 labels might broadly identify everyone, we are all different and that these different terms help us to see how we are different and alike to other people.

Finding out I was demisexual was a bit like finding out I was INFJ "Oh, so I am weird. But I am not the only weird one."

Anyway, I don't go brandishing my labels to people in real life. I just keep them in a box for me to look through. Somehow I feel much more open to showing off the contents of that box when I am online.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

a lot of the time, I think the stuff mentioned in the OP is true. I don't hate demisexuals or have anything against them but,
- true demisexuals are quite rare. many people think that they are demisexual by virtue of actually caring about personality
- many demisexuals and "demisexuals" do look down on people who place high priority in looks
- it's often paraded as a badge of uniqueness and then people get angry when don't take them seriously (it has nothing to do with them being demisexual, I just don't take seriously anyone who parades around their uniqueness and expects me to care)
- if it wasn't, people wouldn't make such a big deal out telling everyone they're demisexual the same way lots of flaming gay guys do.
so, like I said, I have nothing against demisexuals in and of themselves, but the culture surrounding the word (whether it's actual demisexuals or people who are confused or trying to seem unique) makes me do a bit of an eye roll


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Sonny said:


> I presume that is a tangent response to what was said, not what you took from what I said? Cause if it's the latter then you have missed my point and are being defensive about something you do not need to be defensive about. I was answering the question on why it could happen, that was all.
> 
> Apologies if you're 16 and didn't like my eye roll comment, however it is my honest feeling based on my life experience as someone who can relate to aspects of demisexuality, yet am not.


Oh, it was a tangent, don't worry. I was more trying to explain _why_ it's stupid to say 'all Demis are XXX' just because SOME demis are XXX, and precisely why such stereotyping is offensive. And wrong. I was never trying to make out you were one of those people. 

In truth, saying 'well I know SOME demis who...' is a moot point. Some gay people like to bake unicorn cakes - so what?


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

@_tanstaafl28_ I can get turned on by porn/erotic novels/etc, just as people who fully associate as asexuals can. And some can't. If you want me to explain _why_ that is, I'm not sure if I can give you an answer. 

And in regards to the 'hate' we get - if any demi tries to claim they are persecuted as much as other sexual identities, to put it simply, they are a moron. In truth, all we get is some angry fool with fuck all else to do on Sunday writing a scathing blog post. However, seeing as many members here are demis, I though it would be interesting to see what they thought, hence the thread. 

The only thing I will say is that - in our heavily sexualised society - we are stigmatized (albeit unknowingly). Because I had absolutely no interest in males, as a teen, I was repeatedly accused of being a lesbian (even by my own sister :dry. Personally, I would love to see a world where sexualisation isn't the status quo, and there is at least more awareness for people like me - if only because any other confused 16 year old can realize they aren't weird/prudish/really picky/lesbian like I thought.

@_Dewymorning_ - yup, I fucking love this website, if only for the first time realizing I'm not the only Ti-esque person in the world xDD But that aside, I haven't told anybody that I'm demi. Not because I'm embarrassed or anything, but more I don't see why it's a big fucking deal. 

@_Swordsman of Mana_ I fail to see how that experience of some people with some traits makes *any* stereotype I listed in the OP true. Again, I will admit some people do get carried away with the 'demi' label, and I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences with them, but it really isn't fair to tar us all (or most of us) with the same brush. 

Besides, it's not so much these people say we have those traits, it's more they try to psychoanalyze our sexuality and jump to entirely false conclusions based on stereotypes (i.e. she doesn't feel 'normal' sexual attraction, therefore she must be repressed or hate sex in some way). It's a highly demeaning and insulting thing to do. 

Yup, there may very well sometimes be a sucky culture surrounding demis, but it doesn't justify that behavior. 

@_Mzansi_ Seeing as sexuality is a highly complex thing, why _not_ have several labels for it? 

To be honest, current sexual labels - and the way we are taught about them - just take it as a given that we feel sexual attraction - even the good, old fashioned 'asexual' label barely gets a look in. Seeing as we've moved past the binary hetero/**** labels for orientation, why can't we do the same for asexuality? 

Asexuality - like heterosexuality - works on a scale. Some people feel it more than others. Some people only rarely will feel sexual attraction, whereas others will feel it all the time, and others never at all. Some people will even deviate slightly from this scale and only feel it in certain circumstances. 

Why should people force themselves to fit in a box which they don't belong in? Having more labels, more descriptions, is a positive thing IMHO.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Falling Leaves
that's exactly what I said. I don't have any qualms with demisexuals and I don't believe all of them match the stereotypes listed in the OP, but the culture surrounding the word is something else entirely and probably not representative of most demisexuals. the two are separable and that's exactly how I view them.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_Falling Leaves_
> that's exactly what I said. I don't have any qualms with demisexuals and I don't believe all of them match the stereotypes listed in the OP, but the culture surrounding the word is something else entirely and probably not representative of most demisexuals. the two are separable and that's exactly how I view them.


You opened your post -



> a lot of the time, I think the stuff mentioned in the OP is true.


It was in response to that. 

I wasn't trying to make out you hated demis or anything, just more pointing out how the behavior of *SOME* demis - or the facets of the culture surrounding the word - does nothing to justify such attitudes, or makes them in anyway true.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Falling Leaves said:


> You opened your post -
> It was in response to that.
> I wasn't trying to make out you hated demis or anything, just more pointing out how the behavior of *SOME* demis - or the facets of the culture surrounding the word - does nothing to justify such attitudes.


perhaps I didn't word that bit the most tactfully. either way, the culture surrounding the word. real demisexuals aside, the culture surrounding the word draws in a lot of immature people (some real demisexuals, most probably not) who operate in a clique-ish sort of manner and try to flaunt their superiority via pushing acceptance of their exotic sexual preferences on people.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> perhaps I didn't word that bit the most tactfully. either way, the culture surrounding the word. real demisexuals aside, the culture surrounding the word draws in a lot of immature people (some real demisexuals, most probably not) who operate in a clique-ish sort of manner and try to flaunt their superiority via pushing acceptance of their exotic sexual preferences on people.


And I don't deny people identify with niche identities as a means of validation. Regardless of whether you are truly demi or not, you shouldn't use it as a means of looking down on people. That behavior I don't condone. 

HOWEVER, a lot of the blog posts I have stumbled upon can only be described as pure ignorance. Most writers can't even differentiate what they _perceive_ demisexuality to be -



> Only having sex whilst in a dedicated relationship


And what it _actually_ is -



> Being physically unable to experience primary sexual attraction


Which goes exactly to show how much they've sought to understand the subject before mouthing off about it.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Falling Leaves said:


> @_tanstaafl28_ I can get turned on by porn/erotic novels/etc, just as people who fully associate as asexuals can. And some can't. If you want me to explain _why_ that is, I'm not sure if I can give you an answer.
> 
> And in regards to the 'hate' we get - if any demi tries to claim they are persecuted as much as other sexual identities, to put it simply, they are a moron. In truth, all we get is some angry fool with fuck all else to do on Sunday writing a scathing blog post. However, seeing as many members here are demis, I though it would be interesting to see what they thought, hence the thread.
> 
> ...


I don't think it a good thing to create so many labels,
All it does is has some people feel they must mold themselves to the labels if it doesn't 100% describe them.
Labels just place you into a box and don't allow you space,
And with something as fluid as sexuality,
It's best not to label yourself as then you want to "conform" to one label.

Personally I don't think Asexuality can work on a scale,
As it's definition is NO attraction,
It's like an atheists saying they're somewhat still believe in a higher power,
It goes against the definition of the word "atheist".

Personally I just think Demisexual is just another term for needing emotional connections before any physical can happen,
But that's not s sexuality,
And it shouldn't fall under asexuality as asexuality means you CANNOT feel those attractions.
As a demisexual you still have preferences for a gender(from what I have heard),
And therefore you must have a "sexuality",
Or label that already exists.

I guess it's my own experiences!
I don't discount the way you say you fall in love,
or develop attractions,
As it is a good way to do it 
But I don't think it a sexuality,
Rather than style of falling for someone!


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Falling Leaves said:


> And I don't deny people identify with niche identities as a means of validation. Regardless of whether you are truly demi or not, you shouldn't use it as a means of looking down on people. That behavior I don't condone.
> 
> HOWEVER, a lot of the blog posts I have stumbled upon can only be described as pure ignorance. Most writers can't even differentiate what they _perceive_ demisexuality to be -
> 
> Which goes exactly to show how much they've sought to understand the subject before mouthing off about it.


I didn't understand what it was until recently when I asked someone, who is demisexual, what it meant. I've also gained a better understanding just by viewing this thread. I will admit, there's a part of me that looked at the term as a way to hide what their sexuality was, when there should be no need or reason. By itself I've never found any frustration but, when coupled with gender neutral, sometimes it irked me to see. Clearly I am wrong for that. But, I never bashed it...because I didn't understand it. Once I felt comfortable asking someone who was, I did. Before that...I certainly was ignorant to what it meant. 

So, gender neutral, care to explain anyone? If it's meaning is in it's name- "one does not identify one's self as being of either gender", than...I don't know how I feel. Biologically we are male or female....if you have man parts...you're a man and female parts...you're a female. It obviously means, if my definition is correct, that one doesn't fit into the typical stereotypes of their sex but...who does anymore?


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Mzansi said:


> I don't think it a good thing to create so many labels,
> All it does is has some people feel they must mold themselves to the labels if it doesn't 100% describe them.
> Labels just place you into a box and don't allow you space,
> And with something as fluid as sexuality,
> It's best not to label yourself as then you want to "conform" to one label.


Then the problem lies with a persons attitude to the label, and not to the label itself. In truth, you could adopt that mentality to anything, such as... I don't know...

Myers Briggs personality types? 

I don't know about you, but by being able to put myself in the ISTP box has helped me so such over the past few years. In addition to this, I've also learnt to NOT take labels as the be-all-and-end-all of my being - if you pay close attention, you see I identify as both an ISTP and INTP, purely because it suits me. 

Unorthodox? Yes. But I believe I am within my rights to do so. 

...so if labels are ubiquitously (I didn't see a clause in your post explaining why demisexuality would be ay different) so damaging, may I ask why _you_ are here? Surely, as all labels causes us more damage than they can ever help, having 16 of them to pick from is just cruel on the psyche? 



> Personally I don't think Asexuality can work on a scale,
> As it's definition is NO attraction,
> It's like an atheists saying they're somewhat still believe in a higher power,
> It goes against the definition of the word "atheist".


The term for that would be agnostic, i.e. between atheism and theism, unsure. Most agnostics (such as myself) reject all mainstream religion, but don't feel as though they can comment absolutely on the presence of a higher power.

Of course, you are absolutely entitled to feel that way about asexuality. But, seeing as I and many others do feel it falls on a scale*, why can't we define it as such? As I've already said here, so long as your attitude to it is healthy - which it is for the most part - then I don't see why it does any harm. 

*Besides, how do you define NO attraction? Some asexuals do enjoy having sex - does this not make them asexual? Some asexuals watch porn - again, does this not make them asexual? Same with masturbation. As I said, sexuality is a beautifully varied thing. Personally, I think limiting the number of labels to choose from does far more harm than good (speaking from experience as someone who, growing up, did have to force herself into the 'normal' heterosexual box to 'fit in' - the opposite of your opening paragraph could be true). 



> Personally I just think* Demisexual is just another term for needing emotional connections before any physical can happen*,
> But that's not s sexuality,
> And it shouldn't fall under asexuality as asexuality means you CANNOT feel those attractions.
> As a demisexual you still have preferences for a gender(from what I have heard),
> ...


That's not a very good definition of demisexuality, by and large because it falsely assumes demisexuals *only* enter sexual relationships with an emotional connection. Not true - some demis will engage in casual, one night stand-esque sex, for a variety of reasons. 

Demisexuality: The physical inability to feel primary sexual attraction (google it). Note how this definition makes absolutely no comment on the persons sexual habits, or when they start a sexual relationship, but rather in which situations they feel a sense of sexual attraction. 

_Demi =/= only having sex within the confines of a relationship._

Demisexuality is akin to asexuality as it describes an inability to feel sensations of sexual attraction. In day to day life, I feel absolutely no sexual attraction to anybody - for the most part, I am asexual. 

What I can feel however, is romantic attraction to someone, and from that, I will desire them sexually. However, this only occurs when an emotional bond forms. Hence why I don't feel the asexual label completely applies to me (although I do associate with it more than being 'sexual'). 

HOWEVER, that does not make me like someone who chooses to have sex within the confines of a relationship, even if our habits are similar. Why you ask? 

Because, unlike me, that person will still feel physically attracted to people even without the emotional bond - they just choose not to act on it. For me, it isn't as much of a choice; personally, I can't act on something I don't feel. 

That is where the difference lies.



> And it shouldn't fall under asexuality as asexuality means you CANNOT feel those attractions.


My point is it should as, like asexuality, it does describes an inability to feel sexual attraction. The only difference is it's limited to primary (i.e. physical attraction alone), whereas asexuality describes both primary and secondary.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Falling Leaves said:


> Then the problem lies with a persons attitude to the label, and not to the label itself. In truth, you could adopt that mentality to anything, such as... I don't know...
> 
> Myers Briggs personality types?
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to reply so lengthily! 
I am a Agnostic,
And my point was that Asexuality is an extreme side of sexuality,
You cannot really create a "gray" area with it,
As a scale may do.
Doesn't mean I think it's bad,
It's just I do not think that you can define yourself as an Asexual,
Yet still want to partake in sexual activities like a one night stand.

My problem with the term of Demisexuality is that it implies that there must be another "gender",
As to me your sexuality determines who you fall for,
And as shallow as it may sound, 
Your sexuality should go according to the gender,
Or genders you CAN create that attraction to(Physically and emotionally).

What I think me and you are at logger heads at is what we define as "sexuality",
I say it's the genders you can fall in love with,
Or be physically attracted to or not.
Asexuality to me means no attraction "physically" or romantically to any of the genders.

But I may be wrong with this.

I don't harbor and Dislike for any sexuality,
Or any attraction form(except people who love animals in "that way").
I guess my definitions for a sexuality are more rigid.
And I don't see why we need to create so many labels when the "main" 4 are around!

But then again I just don't like labels!


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Mzansi said:


> Thank you for taking the time to reply so lengthily!
> I am a Agnostic,
> And my point was that Asexuality is an extreme side of sexuality,
> You cannot really create a "gray" area with it,
> ...


I did almost address this, but edited it out - 

Asexuality/sexuality and hetero/**** are both sexual identities, just not in the same vein. 

Hetero/**** defines who you feel sexual attraction to. 

Asexuality/sexuality defines in what circumstances you will feel attracted to them (if any). 

So, although hetero/**** is the more recognized way of defining yourself, it doesn't create a complete picture. Technically, I am a heterosexual female, however, I enjoy the demisexual modifier as it also gives further insight into my sexuality. 

So although, yes, asexuality doesn't typically come with a gay/straight/bi label (although asexuals can choose to be hetero/****/biromantic, as in they will form romantic relationships with others of a certain gender), I can describe myself as a hetero demisexual.

Having one label does not exclude the others. 

...of course, nobody here is saying that you _have_ to pick every label which suits you and carry it around. If, like yourself, you aren't comfortable with 28 different definitions, than you are free to pick one and just stick with that. In truth, when asked, I'll just say I'm straight - by excluding demisexuality, I'm not lying about my identity because, technically yes, I am still straight. 

The idea of having more labels is to create options for people if they so wish. It isn't to categorize people and force them into boxes whether they want to be or not (most sites describing asexuality are fairly explicit in saying so - whether you want to associate with that label or not is entirely up to you, and how you feel about it).

---

However, I will have to disagree with you on the Asexual definition front. Again, asexuality describes an inability to feel sexual attraction - it makes absolutely no comment on a persons sexual habits. 

An asexual person may choose to engage in one nights stands, not because they are sexually attracted to a person, but because they enjoy the physical act of sex, because of peer pressure or because they feel it feeds an emotional need within them. I admit it would be rare, nor am I suggesting it's necessarily healthy behavior, but it's certainly not impossible. Same goes for Demis. 

Again, a person can still be unable to feel a sense of physical attraction to someone and have sex with them. Having sex outside the confines of a relationship and not feeling primary sexual attraction are not mutually exclusive events - they can exist concurrently.

*Having a one night stand does not change the fact they don't feel sexual attraction on any level.*


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

I believe that some people consider demisexual to be off putting because it goes against the grain of society and most of society has this set idea that it's ok to ogle women/men even when you're in a relationship. I don't agree with their stances but it's their stance. It only really bothers me when I see it everywhere, kind of like from the movie "They live" with the media billboards, with subliminal messages. Most of society assumes that what is popular, is the correct way to live. I do not attack what I consider shallow people unless they attack my sexuality first. Any time I've dated anyone, I didn't see what they looked like but fell for them in my mind, and their way of thinking/feeling. That is the ultimate turn on for me and for other demisexuals. ^-^ I had no idea what my fiance looked like and his presence, even without hearing him was refreshing. His views were. He is also a demisexual.  I say, I don't give a shit about other sexuality as long as they don't attack me with theirs. If they must, then I might attack back because it is an attack of my character.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

all words are labels, anyway. 
big words are labels for collections of smaller words.

labels are just a convenience. You can describe your sexuality in a specific way everytime you're asked, or just give a single word that is understood to mean that recognised state. 
Don't get why people care so much.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Falling Leaves said:


> I did almost address this, but edited it out -
> 
> Asexuality/sexuality and hetero/**** are both sexual identities, just not in the same vein.
> 
> ...


I can agree with this train of thought!
As long as the differentiation between what gender you are attracted too,
And HOW you may develop or feel attractions for these genders are differentiated.
I guess I could possibly agree.

Though still not wholly 
You drive a hard argument,
And It's valid.
But how I see Asexuality( as it is a orientation) hasn't changed!
Though on demisexuality it has,
Slightly haha

As I said people need to differentiate that your "orientation" is not defined by being a "demisexual" but by the gender you CAn fall for!


----------



## EllieBear (Nov 8, 2012)

I refuse to put demisexual as my orientation on here, or any other site, because I'm still not sure if I'm actually capable of a sexual relationship inside of a relationship.

I'm not sexually repressed, in fact I try, quite hard, to be more sexual. I just can't. I'm also not unhealthy. Do I have sexual hang ups? I have no idea. I find the idea of having sex quite unsettling, and I have a major fear of contracting some kind of STD. I guess to some people those would be unhealthy fears or hang ups.

I'm not heterosexual. I'm a lesbian, so regardless of whether I'm having sex or not, I'm considered weird. This also means I can't be identifying out of jealously (seriously? Because us LGBT's are treated so flipping well, right?)

Its a phase? Um... no idea. I don't think so. However I don't openly identify to the people I know. So I get no attention or support for it. 

Looking down on promiscuous people? No, I'm a feminist I believe your body is your own and you do with it what you want. I would hope people respect themselves enough to take precautions but no, I most certainly don't look down upon people who have lots of sex. Just like I don't down on people who like pizza. 


My "favourite" stereotype, is that we cannot have sex outside of a relationship. As in, it's impossible. I don't like that one. I'm also not a fan of the idea that if you are asexual or demisexual then you cannot masturbate for any reason.


However, I could go without a sexual relationship at all as long as my partner (and I do want a partner, to get married, have a family) was intelligent and interesting. To me your brain is so, so much more attractive than your body will ever be. Maybe to me, a good debate is like sex - I don't need the physical, as long as I get the mental stimulation I need. I don't know.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

This is a small excerpt from my blog. I hope it can help some people understand a bit better. Note, that this is how I view it and not necessarily how other demisexuals do.



> Sadly, there were still misunderstandings about it. I kind of came up with the idea that sexuality is a four-dimensional thing, but had a lot of trouble putting it into a diagram, but wound up putting it in a way that, at least for me, is easy to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nope (Mar 13, 2011)

I didn't read this whole thread, but I have a question.

Do demisexuals feel physical attraction _after_ there's emotional attraction, or they just never feel physical attraction and only emotional attraction?


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> This is a small excerpt from my blog. I hope it can help some people understand a bit better. Note, that this is how I view it and not necessarily how other demisexuals do.


seems rather unnecessary to turn it into a cube. You could just as easy have sets of parallel scales, like some of the function preference maps.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

You Sir Name said:


> I've had people congratulate me for it, like I wasn't serious when I told them how my attraction works. They just assumed that it is a moral choice for me
> :|



It gets complicated when it is both an involuntary aspect of my sexuality AND something I have strong ethical feelings about as a feminist who opposes sexual objectification. I am the annoying kind of demisexual. I am the negative stereotype that other demisexuals want to apologize for and distance themselves from, because I am not afraid to state that there is something wrong with discriminating against potential romantic partners based on how they look. I am not afraid to call people shallow. If demisexuals have gotten a bad reputation, part of it is because there are some of us who have no problem saying things that make sexuals feel defensive. 




Nope said:


> I didn't read this whole thread, but I have a question.
> 
> Do demisexuals feel physical attraction _after_ there's emotional attraction, or they just never feel physical attraction and only emotional attraction?


We can feel sexual arousal, and we can feel a desire to have sex. I don't know how it works for the others, but even now that I have married my soulmate, I don't look at his body parts and think that he is sexy because of them. I would find him just as sexually desirable if his body were to become disfigured in some way. I feel no lust for the object he inhabits, any more than I could feel lust for a bicycle or a house. It just doesn't work that way for me. I can associate his body with his identity, in a symbolic sense, so that it becomes like a place marker on a board game that represents his location, but I don't think that is the same thing non-demisexuals experience.


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

snail said:


> It gets complicated when it is both an involuntary aspect of my sexuality AND something I have strong ethical feelings about as a feminist who opposes sexual objectification. I am the annoying kind of demisexual. I am the negative stereotype that other demisexuals want to apologize for and distance themselves from, because I am not afraid to state that there is something wrong with discriminating against potential romantic partners based on how they look. I am not afraid to call people shallow. If demisexuals have gotten a bad reputation, part of it is because there are some of us who have no problem saying things that make sexuals feel defensive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't it maybe a little unfair of you to judge those who do feel lust..who are Physically Attracted to others? If seeing someone who had beautiful eyes, a great smile, great physique and attractive demeanor to them turns one person on, ignoring it doesn't change the attraction was felt. 

That's something you, based on what you've said, don't understand....so, how can you judge those who do feel this way? 

I do agree the over objectification is disrespectful, especially when done in bad taste. But, I can't say I've never seen a woman and thought "Wow she's hot/beautiful/lovely". There's usually far more to it than just their physical attributes but not always and, even when so, those do play a huge role. And, I don't try to see women this way...I'm not trying to be (sexually) attracted to their physical appearance...I just am.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Dewymorning said:


> I want to answer this.
> 
> I only recently realized that I fit the description of a demisexual.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your reply. It seems like some sort of "grey area" on the progression towards asexuality.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> Has anybody else noticed how, initially, a lot of people have a negative reaction to the Demisexual orientation?
> 
> Here is a list of common misconceptions I've found:
> 
> ...



I've noticed a lot of negative reaction to demisexuality, but not so much on PerC as other places. I have seen demisexuals who use their sexuality to bash on non-demisexual people but those are few and far between and anyone who uses those people as a typical example of demisexuality are ignorant and looking for conflict. While I have a strong dislike for demisexuals who do shame people for experiencing sexual attraction differently than they do, that dislike is based on their being douchebags rather than their sexuality. Most misconceptions of demisexuals are a product of people not wanting to learn new perspectives, if someone isn't like them they think 'what would have to happen to me to make me like them' and there come the accusations of being repressed/jealous/special snowflakes.

I have nothing but support for demisexuals. While I don't identify that way anymore, I was (as far as I can tell) the first person to mention demisexuality or openly identify as demisexual on PerC *so proud it's now on the list of sexual preferences* and demisexuality will always have a squishy place in my heart.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

@_snail_ 

Actually, speaking as a fellow demi, I don't resent you for being 'that kind'. Regardless of someones sexuality, I believe they are fully entitled to an opinion about sex and what it means to them (just so long as you accept that, to some people, sex is a fun, pleasurable act which can either be committal or non-committal in nature/other non-concordant views). Even so, I would never be so ignorant as to suggest you hold that belief _because_ of your sexuality. 

...I put all of the blame on people who look at people like you, connect the dot between 'looking down on others' and 'demisexuality' and falsely assume we're all like that. By the same strain of logic, I could say that about straight people, gay people, mexicans, Christians, etcetcetc.

Correlation does not always prove causation. 

The only point I would challenge is saying that physical appearance isn't important when picking a mate. I do agree in part - it should never be the _sole_ deciding factor, however, it's very easy to underplay the importance of primary sexual attraction when you yourself have never felt it. 

Ideally, if you do feel romantic attraction towards somebody but not primary/physical attraction, then you should at least consider a relationship: To not, I suppose, would be shallow behavior. However, you should also bear in mind that (for some people at least) that feeling of strong sexual excitement and buzzing arousal is an integral part of a relationship - to expect them to give it up is a big ask. 

Also, I can't speak for every non-asexual here, but I always got the impression the pecking order was primary sexual attraction _and then_ secondary sexual attraction (i.e. the latter cannot typically exist without the former existing first). I don't believe it's impossible for a non-asexual to feel secondary attraction alone, more so that they don't consciously expect to feel attracted to someone without recognizing them as 'hot' first. 

If I'm wrong in thinking this, someone do please correct me ^^


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Falling Leaves said:


> @_snail_
> 
> Also, I can't speak for every non-asexual here, but I always got the impression the pecking order was primary sexual attraction _and then_ secondary sexual attraction (i.e. the latter cannot typically exist without the former existing first). I don't believe it's impossible for a non-asexual to feel secondary attraction alone, more so that they don't consciously expect to feel attracted to someone without recognizing them as 'hot' first.
> 
> If I'm wrong in thinking this, someone do please correct me ^^



You're wrong in thinking this:tongue:.

There are many women I have been around who I didn't find sexually attractive at all when first meeting them. Sure, they were not "unattractive" necessarily, but, they just didn't do it for me. While forming a bond and getting to know them, that sexual attraction grew from what seemed like a non existing state. I don't know how to explain it but, it wasn't there...and then, it was. 

I actually am not typically sexually attracted to looks alone in general. I can see a woman and think "she's hot" but would not be able to fantasize about her without having at least some knowledge of her personality. This is true even when watching porn or looking at risqué photos of women. I need a backstory (even if it's a made up one), otherwise, it's like looking at a walking mannequin. 

This wasn't always true for me but, through the years, I've met a lot of women who did turn me on by physical traits alone, only to have their nature of being completely turn me off. I don't find myself attracted to rude, selfish and uncaring women. If a woman talks down or looks down on others regularly, I am not interested...even if she's Cindy Crawford hot (sorry for the objectification). *Knowing this now has changed how I view sexual attraction and the order in which each form affects me. 

That is just me though. I tend to think many feel this way, even if they don't show it. Some are too influenced by societal standards/expectations to openly admit it.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Thanks for your reply. It seems like some sort of "grey area" on the progression towards asexuality.



Yes, when I first heard of asexuality I identified with it quite a bit, even though I knew I was not an asexual. Wish I had heard about demisexuality at the same time.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

JaySH said:


> You're wrong in thinking this:tongue:.
> 
> There are many women I have been around who I didn't find sexually attractive at all when first meeting them. Sure, they were not "unattractive" necessarily, but, they just didn't do it for me. While forming a bond and getting to know them, that sexual attraction grew from what seemed like a non existing state. I don't know how to explain it but, it wasn't there...and then, it was.
> 
> ...


Ah thank you, I didn't quite feel confident in my speculation. 

I do still believe that some non-asexuals have this attitude, but my guess is that they would be in the minority rather than the majority. 

I can see where I'm wrong though - most people do feel a mix of primary and secondary attraction when dating/attracted to somone. Which is more important is down to the individual I guess, but I'd hedge my bets on the latter.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> Also, I can't speak for every non-asexual here, but I always got the impression the pecking order was primary sexual attraction _and then_ secondary sexual attraction (i.e. the latter cannot typically exist without the former existing first). I don't believe it's impossible for a non-asexual to feel secondary attraction alone, more so that they don't consciously expect to feel attracted to someone without recognizing them as 'hot' first.
> 
> If I'm wrong in thinking this, someone do please correct me ^^


This is not true, it varies a lot from person to person. The reason I stopped identifying as demisexual is because I realized how much this fluctuated in myself. Secondary sexual attraction will probably always be more important to me than primary sexual attraction but that doesn't make me demisexual because I am still experience primary sexual attraction on a regular basis. Likewise, it is not unusual for non-demisexual people to start finding a person sexually attractive after they've become emotionally close to them but they can still experience primary sexual attraction. Human sexuality is all wibbly and non-linear like that. :tongue:


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

My woefully incompletely list of misconceptions about demisexuals (that demisexuals can even sometimes have about other demisexuals):

*Demisexuals cannot be promiscuous.* (Demisexuals can be as promiscuous as anyone else; attraction != behavior.)
*Demisexuals do not have casual sex.* (See above. Finding someone sexually attractive is not necessary to be horny enough to hook-up.)
*Demisexuals cannot be non-monogamous. *(Why anyone would even think demisexuals by default monogamous is beyond me, honestly. There are just SO MANY things wrong with this line of thinking I could write an essay but I'm lazy.)
*Demisexuals cannot be shallow.* (Anyone can be shallow. Anyone.)
*Demisexuals must be in love to experience sexual attraction.* (Romance is not the only form of emotional connection. Demisexuals can experience sexual attraction as the result of MULTITUDES of emotional connections, and in fact some demisexuals are aromantic so sexual attraction due to romantic connection can be completely off the table to start with.)


Demisexual people, much like any other type of person, don't have to be anything other than what they damn well please. How much or what kind of sex they're getting doesn't invalidate their sexual orientation.


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Falling Leaves said:


> Ah thank you, I didn't quite feel confident in my speculation.
> 
> I do still believe that some non-asexuals have this attitude, but my guess is that they would be in the minority rather than the majority.
> 
> I can see where I'm wrong though - most people do feel a mix of primary and secondary attraction when dating/attracted to somone. Which is more important is down to the individual I guess, but I'd hedge my bets on the latter.


A pretty face/nice body can change/fade with age and, if you can't connect on some deeper level, it would be boring to be together merely for this. Like having a picture/painting on a wall...sure it dresses up the place nice but it would lose it's value in entertaining the mind(if it ever had that value) once newness wore off.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

JaySH said:


> So, gender neutral, care to explain anyone? If it's meaning is in it's name- "one does not identify one's self as being of either gender", than...I don't know how I feel. Biologically we are male or female....if you have man parts...you're a man and female parts...you're a female. It obviously means, if my definition is correct, that one doesn't fit into the typical stereotypes of their sex but...who does anymore?


Sure, I'll give it a try ^__^
So, sex and gender are two different things. Sex has to do with biology and gender has to do with identity. Now why people identify as one gender or another may have to do with several reasons ... they may look at sex, how "masculine" and "feminine" they are, they may even take into account things like the clothes they wear and whatnot (for instance biological males who like to dress up in women's clothing). How someone chooses their identity, I don't know.
Now if someone's gender and sex match, they are referred to as cis-gendered and if someone's sex does not match their gender, they are usually referred to as transgendered

Now there are people who identify as gender-fluid, meaning what gender they identify with can change and sometimes they feel male and sometimes they feel as though they are female ... Someone who is gender fluid could probably give a much better explanation of this

And some people identify as agendered. I can't speak for others, but I can only say why I chose it. I respect that gender identity is important for a lot of people, but it is not an important part of my identity. I feel as though I have many "masculine" and "feminine" traits (probably more "feminine"), but I don't feel as though I am a man or a woman ... I just feel like me and I'd rather not have such a label attached to me with all these stereotypes that don't make me. As far as language or such goes, I will use masculine language towards myself (as language can be very gendered) and I have no problem telling people that I have male genitalia and I'm pretty sure I have XY-chromosomes (as opposed to an abnormal sex chromosome pattern, such as XXY or XYY) ... but I don't care if people think of me as being "manly" or being "womanly".
Except in the "ask a man" thread because I want to answer questions 

So sex is biology, how you are born, ... and gender is identity and is probably related (for some people) to the social roles and personalities we ascribe to sex

This thread may help
http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/120452-what-does-mean-gender-neutral.html




Falling Leaves said:


> The term for that would be agnostic, i.e. between atheism and theism, unsure. Most agnostics (such as myself) reject all mainstream religion, but don't feel as though they can comment absolutely on the presence of a higher power.


Agnostic does not really between atheism and theism ... Although, there are many agnostics who may not belief in at least one God nor a belief that there is no God ... there are those that do have a belief.

For instance, I identify as a strong agnostic, meaning not only do I believe that I don't know whether or not a God exists, I believe it is impossible to know (and I do think the term deity is ill-defined in a more formal sense, but I'm going by a more conceptualized though) ... People who have more gnostic beliefs would strongly disagree with me . Taking this stance, there may be no logical reason to have a belief one way or the other, but I have my own personal reasons for being a theist and there is no logic for it, just personal reasons for my belief.

So, one would call me an agnostic theist 



snail said:


> We can feel sexual arousal, and we can feel a desire to have sex. I don't know how it works for the others, but even now that I have married my soulmate, I don't look at his body parts and think that he is sexy because of them. I would find him just as sexually desirable if his body were to become disfigured in some way. I feel no lust for the object he inhabits, any more than I could feel lust for a bicycle or a house. It just doesn't work that way for me. I can associate his body with his identity, in a symbolic sense, so that it becomes like a place marker on a board game that represents his location, but I don't think that is the same thing non-demisexuals experience.


Although I do lust feel lust for the physical, I am pretty sure many non-demisexuals who are not asexual can probably still feel sexual attraction for someone they care about, even if their looks change. ... For me at least, my emotional attraction to someone can be so great that they look sexy to me no matter what.

That being said, I am still curious if there are people who only experience primary sexual attraction or they barely experience any secondary sexual attraction.



Falling Leaves said:


> Also, I can't speak for every non-asexual here, but I always got the impression the pecking order was primary sexual attraction _and then_ secondary sexual attraction (i.e. the latter cannot typically exist without the former existing first). I don't believe it's impossible for a non-asexual to feel secondary attraction alone, more so that they don't consciously expect to feel attracted to someone without recognizing them as 'hot' first.
> 
> If I'm wrong in thinking this, someone do please correct me ^^


I think usually primary attraction is felt first because it takes time to develop an emotional connection ... but I don't think it is as simple as it is needed ... For some people it may be needed, but not for me
For instance, I have been able to become sexually attracted to people who I originally had thought were unattractive.
Things that can change my attraction is a strong emotional connection, certain genuine facial expressions (not nearly as much as an emotional connection, but enough to make me take an interest in someone), or "weird" mannerisms/behaviors (same as with facial expressions ... enough to make me interested ... such as walking backwards by themselves for fun)
Also, I have a "fetish" and if someone is interested in that too, my attraction for them also increases (or comes into existence)


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

JaySH said:


> Isn't it maybe a little unfair of you to judge those who do feel lust..who are Physically Attracted to others? If seeing someone who had beautiful eyes, a great smile, great physique and attractive demeanor to them turns one person on, ignoring it doesn't change the attraction was felt.
> 
> That's something you, based on what you've said, don't understand....so, how can you judge those who do feel this way?
> 
> I do agree the over objectification is disrespectful, especially when done in bad taste. But, I can't say I've never seen a woman and thought "Wow she's hot/beautiful/lovely". There's usually far more to it than just their physical attributes but not always and, even when so, those do play a huge role. And, I don't try to see women this way...I'm not trying to be (sexually) attracted to their physical appearance...I just am.


I don't consider it unfair for me to have negative feelings about the idea of forming attractions that are partly based on objectification. I think looks-based discrimination is evil. However, I have questioned the effectiveness of the way I express my outrage over such problems, since I acknowledge that fighting about it has never yet made anyone stop doing it. 

The eyes and the smile can be expressive. I am not against being attracted to what someone expresses with his/her body, since such expression is a choice that means something about a person. However, if you like the eyes because they are a certain color, or the smile because of the shape of the lips, then it falls into a different category and is no longer acceptable behavior. Wanting someone for his/her body shape, facial structure, height, weight, hair color, eye color, skin color, breast size, penis size, toe length or nostril width would be both unwise and unfair. 

I don't understand how anyone could think those things mattered. They don't mean anything real. Judging a person's worth by his/her bodily features should very obviously fall into the same category as racism, sexism, able-ism, and other major evils that every decent person is rightly against. 

I don't know why the average person does not make that connection, aside from defensiveness and a desire to avoid change. How can a person really believe that s/he does not have any control over whether s/he is going to behave in a prejudiced manner in his/her own intimate relationships?

I don't want to sound harsh about it, but I can't make myself feel any differently. I want the world to change.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

dizzycactus said:


> what if the sexuality you are looking down upon equates to killing people, chopping them in half and then screwing their intestinal tract? Is it just insecurity to oppose that, too?
> 
> Absolute statements that apply to only arbitrarily and implicitly selected situations are funny.


This is why I weep for humanity............


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

snail said:


> I don't consider it unfair for me to have negative feelings about the idea of forming attractions that are partly based on objectification. I think looks-based discrimination is evil. However, I have questioned the effectiveness of the way I express my outrage over such problems, since I acknowledge that fighting about it has never yet made anyone stop doing it.
> 
> The eyes and the smile can be expressive. I am not against being attracted to what someone expresses with his/her body, since such expression is a choice that means something about a person. However, if you like the eyes because they are a certain color, or the smile because of the shape of the lips, then it falls into a different category and is no longer acceptable behavior. Wanting someone for his/her body shape, facial structure, height, weight, hair color, eye color, skin color, breast size, penis size, toe length or nostril width would be both unwise and unfair.
> 
> ...


Looking at someone and feeling/not feeling a desire to "mate" with them, putting it primitively, is not, in anyway, the same as racism/sexism/able-ism. It is instinctual and something we do not necessarily control, IMO. 

Do you like every song you hear? Are you moved by every piece of art? Why not? These aren't conscious choices...nor is being physically attracted to someone vs. not. 

If you've never felt it than you don't understand. I can appreciate that. I want the world to change too and am not against everything or even most of what you say. But, to devalue the instinctual attraction some feel and compare it to ignorance that is associated (rightfully so) with racism, sexism and able-ism is unfair, IMO. 

There is a difference between having a checklist of physical traits you "need" and instinctually being attracted to certain women/men. I've said many times I have no specific type and, I don't. I've dated all different "types" of women. But there are women, no matter how great their personality is, that just do not attract me.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

JaySH said:


> Looking at someone and feeling/not feeling a desire to "mate" with them, putting it primitively, is not, in anyway, the same as racism/sexism/able-ism. It is instinctual and something we do not necessarily control, IMO.
> 
> Do you like every song you hear? Are you moved by every piece of art? Why not? These aren't conscious choices...nor is being physically attracted to someone vs. not.
> 
> ...



Do not use our cave men ancestors as a way to justify ogling. Some of us are actually so evolved, that we are demisexuals and the media makes people think that it's instinct, because you grow up around this taboo crap. Go to Africa and tell me if you see someone who has a fetish for tits, or in the jungle. Drooling over breasts is not instinct, it's a crap idea spewed out by the shitty media.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

snail said:


> I don't understand how anyone could think those things mattered. They don't mean anything real. Judging a person's worth by his/her bodily features should very obviously fall into the same category as racism, sexism, able-ism, and other major evils that every decent person is rightly against.
> 
> I don't know why the average person does not make that connection, aside from defensiveness and a desire to avoid change. How can a person really believe that s/he does not have any control over whether s/he is going to behave in a prejudiced manner in his/her own intimate relationships?


Okay, I agree that judging someone's "worth" based on looks is wrong, but I don't think people are worth less because I am or am not attracted to them. ... If I have a special connection to someone, then yes, they are worth more to *me*. But I also believe that overall we are all "worth" the same, but we are just different ... I mean people are individuals .... There are people who do great things in the world, that doesn't mean I want to be with them. ... I've heard a few times that "____ is not good enough for you", but I HATE that argument when it is used for perfectly decent people ... It has nothing to do with "good" enough or not, it has to do with compatibility ... and an aspect of compatibility is attraction ....

And, I will say this now, as hard as I try, I can not be sexually attracted to men (I really wish I could change that, but I can't). Does that mean I am discriminating against men? Perhaps ... Sure ... but it is my life and I can choose who I want to be with me, just like someone else can choose that they want me. It is a mutual choice. And no one is some prize to be one where everyone has an equal chance. ... If a woman said that she did not want to date me because I am short, and she does not find short men sexually attractive, that is okay with me. But, if she treated me worse because I was short or thought short people were inferior, well that is a different story ... and I would not be okay with that.

Finding a partner is not about finding someone who is "worth" the most ... it is about finding someone that is compatible with me that I will love dearly and she will love me back. ... If a woman and I love each other, but she just can't be sexually attracted to me because of my looks, then we have a sexual compatibility issue. That does not mean I have any less value nor does it stop us from having a very fulfilling friendship.


Of course, I have been restricting myself to long-term monogamous relationships here. I would imagine that in casual sex relationships that mostly sexual attraction matters and a lack of romantic feelings may be a good thing in those relationships .... and I imagine, you could have a polyamorous relationship where you don't have sex with one of your partners, but you are very romantic with them instead.

Now, in an earlier post, you brought up about an accident. In certain types of accidents, sex may be impossible to have after that. That does not mean the relationship is over, but I don't think that should diminish choosing someone you are sexually compatible with as well. Actually, you can have sexual intimacy without sex, but I think all those years of sexual intimacy can strengthen romantic feelings for someone over time (as long as there is also love and romance there). ... And it is okay to desire sex and to choose a partner that you want to have sex with (assume you want to have sex in the first place)

As far as look based discrimination there is someone it all around us. You have to be a certain height to guide airplanes, I know a woman who did not want to have sex with skinny guys because she was scared of accidentally hurting them, and then there is hollywood. Nothing says looks based discrimination like acting jobs, because they need someone to "look" the part (match the backstory and everything else).

So, I am against devaluing someone based on looks, but I don't think turning someone down to be your S.O. is devaluing them. Perhaps social preferences for always showing one type of body as unattractive (influencing what people find attractive) may devalue, because the media does not show that body type as attractive and even degrades that body type ... yes, that is wrong ... but individual preferences (where you don't look down on people because you are not attracted to them), I think, are different



chip said:


> Do not use our cave men ancestors as a way to justify ogling.* Some of us are actually so evolved, that we are demisexuals *and the media makes people think that it's instinct, because you grow up around this taboo crap. Go to Africa and tell me if you see someone who has a fetish for tits, or in the jungle. Drooling over breasts is not instinct, it's a crap idea spewed out by the shitty media.


Offensive much? ... Not to mention, I think you missed his point


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

chip said:


> Do not use our cave men ancestors as a way to justify ogling. Some of us are actually so evolved, that we are demisexuals and the media makes people think that it's instinct, because you grow up around this taboo crap. Go to Africa and tell me if you see someone who has a fetish for tits, or in the jungle. Drooling over breasts is not instinct, it's a crap idea spewed out by the shitty media.


Well, this was both rude and not constructive. And, I did not mention cave men (though I did use primitive..I did not mean in that sense). I did not mention ogling, nor was it implied. but...Thank you. We disagree. And, breast size means nothing to me, just FYI. Media influence has nothing to do with what does and does not attract me. Personality does play a huge role with me..but, there are physical traits I find unattractive. If you'd like to make me out as ignorant, so be it. It's not true but, your opinion is your opinion.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> seems rather unnecessary to turn it into a cube. You could just as easy have sets of parallel scales, like some of the function preference maps.


Except parallels don't affect each other in any way. They go on to infinity without ever touching. That would be like saying one facet of your sexuality does not affect the others, which is simply false.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

chip said:


> Do not use our cave men ancestors as a way to justify ogling. Some of us are actually so evolved, that we are demisexuals and the media makes people think that it's instinct, because you grow up around this taboo crap. Go to Africa and tell me if you see someone who has a fetish for tits, or in the jungle. Drooling over breasts is not instinct, it's a crap idea spewed out by the shitty media.


I'm pretty sure there were demisexual cavemen. This has nothing to do with evolution, otherwise a lot more people would be demi.

Men enjoy breasts so much over here because they are always covered. In Africa they see breasts all around every day.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> Except parallels don't affect each other in any way. They go on to infinity without ever touching. That would be like saying one facet of your sexuality does not affect the others, which is simply false.


well, no. Scales can have arbitrary limits imposed, like a maximum of a hundred. 

Also, facets of sexuality within your cube do not affect the others. The value of one dimension can change without affecting the value of any of the other dimensions. That's practically the definition of dimensions, they are at right angles.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> well, no. Scales can have arbitrary limits imposed, like a maximum of a hundred.
> 
> Also, facets of sexuality within your cube do not affect the others. The value of one dimension can change without affecting the value of any of the other dimensions. That's practically the definition of dimensions, they are at right angles.


Read what I said again. Parallels never touch. If it bothers you so much then don't look at it and make your own.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> Read what I said again. Parallels never touch. If it bothers you so much then don't look at it and make your own.


they... don't need to touch. They each describe a certain sexual dimension.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> they... don't need to touch. They each describe a certain sexual dimension.


Each thing affects the other. Whether you see it that way or not.


----------



## DemonAbyss10 (Oct 28, 2010)

Mzansi said:


> I have nothing against Demisexuals,
> As I know a few who say they are Demisexual.
> 
> My problem is that we in this modern day and age create to many sexualities,
> ...



The labels happen due to a thing about human nature called 'If you are different than the majority in any way, something is wrong. It can create many tense situations from personal experience. Try getting called a ****, dragged out in front of a group of idiots and having the shit beaten out of your, simply because people THINK your are gay when your are not, all because you are not uberly-promiscuous/oversexed like the rest of the local culture. The whole conformity bullshit really goes to all levels of society if your really think about it. Humans are 'social' creatures after all. Heh... more like a virus. But enough misanthropy for now.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> Each thing affects the other. Whether you see it that way or not.


then you would need something different than a cube. The dimensions of a cube are static, and you seem to be implying dynamic variables that change with change in other variables, like a 2-variable function f(x,y)


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> then you would need something different than a cube. The dimensions of a cube are static, and you seem to be implying dynamic variables that change with change in other variables, like a 2-variable function f(x,y)


The cube isn't what changes. It's the points within.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

JaySH said:


> Looking at someone and feeling/not feeling a desire to "mate" with them, putting it primitively, is not, in anyway, the same as racism/sexism/able-ism. It is instinctual and something we do not necessarily control, IMO.
> 
> Do you like every song you hear? Are you moved by every piece of art? Why not? These aren't conscious choices...nor is being physically attracted to someone vs. not.
> 
> ...


There are people who think it is instinctual for them to feel territorial and xenophobic because it once served some evolutionary purpose, but that doesn't mean it is right for them to hate foreigners or to exclude them. Some homophobes can't control their feelings of fear and disgust. Does that justify treating people unfairly? Where is a person supposed to draw the line? To me, it really does seem the same.

I don't like every song or every piece of art, but music and paintings are not living beings with their own thoughts and feelings. Also, if I feel a natural attraction to a song, it is almost always because of the emotional substance of it, and how much I relate to the mood or ideas it expresses. When a song doesn't appeal to me, it is generally because I can't connect with it, not because it is in a certain key, or because it ends on a certain note. 

If I were going to come up with a more fitting comparison to explain your point, I would say that it happens in the same way that a person may have a tendency to select foods that taste good, whether or not they are nutritious. This leads some people to make the mistake of eating a lot of processed junk foods with artificial flavors designed to make them more appealing to the senses. Some nutritious foods also taste good, so as a compromise, one who likes good-tasting food may say that it is okay to select foods based on taste as long as one doesn't forget to also concern oneself with whether or not the foods are healthful. There is absolutely no reason to intentionally eat food that doesn't appeal to the senses when there are healthful options that taste good.

A person who thinks of people as though they were food could say that this is what s/he is doing when s/he selects a partner based on looks and then refines his/her choice by picking only the good-looking people who are also nice. However, people are not objects, and starting the search with the first qualification being sensory appeal is doing everyone involved a disservice, including the person who is unnecessarily limiting his/her own options based on something completely trivial. 

The reason these examples aren't going to work is that comparing any object to a person is a failure to acknowledge the ultimate core of why this kind of behavior disturbs me: people are subjects, not objects. 

I probably don't understand, having never felt it. I am looking at this from outside, and from this perspective, it looks very similar to all of the other social evils I am fighting to end.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

TWN said:


> I also find it disrespectful to compare demi-sexuals to asexuals; an asexual individual is nothing like a demisexual, or at least the definitions given here.


Demisexuality: An inability to feel primary sexual attraction. 

Asexuality: An inability to feel any kind of sexual attraction, both primary and secondary.

Demi/Asexuality are comparable as they both describe states where a person is *physically incapable *of feeling sexual attraction, one is just to a greater extent than the other. 

...also, from what I've seen around the internet, most asexual sites and boards speak openly of demisexuality and embrace it as a legitimate orientation. I think your point that it's somehow 'disrespectful' to asexuals is null.

Still, if an asexual comes to this board personally affronted by the demi orientation, I'm more than happy to discuss it with them.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Stupid quote malfunction. 

Falling Leaves- You said that demisexuals are not capable of feeling sexual attraction physically ?


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

"*A **demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone"*


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

chip said:


> Stupid quote malfunction.
> 
> Falling Leaves- You said that demisexuals are not capable of feeling sexual attraction physically ?


May I ask what you mean by that?


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Falling Leaves said:


> May I ask what you mean by that?


Sorry, didn't specify >.< 

You wrote this

"Demi/Asexuality are comparable as they both describe states where a person is *physically incapable **of feeling sexual attraction, one is just to a greater extent than the other."*


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Nvm.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Falling Leaves said:


> Sorry, but where does that say it's physically impossible for them to have sex with someone they feel no sexual attraction to?
> 
> Because all I see is another way of saying "A demisexual person does not experience primary sexual attraction*"
> 
> *I prefer this definition as it removes the misconception of 'demisexual = only having sex when in an emotional relationship'



Fuck fuck fuck LOL sorry no sleep for me yet I will find the right quote. Srsly tooth pain all night, no sleep >.<


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

> jaySH, I do not think you are a demisexual, not to be rude. Your preferences earlier as you mentioned, did not seem demisexual.


 @chip, I never claimed to be.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

chip said:


> Sorry, didn't specify >.<
> 
> You wrote this
> 
> "Demi/Asexuality are comparable as they both describe states where a person is *physically incapable **of feeling sexual attraction, one is just to a greater extent than the other."*


It's physically impossible for me to feel sexual attraction to someone before forming some kind of emotional bond or connection. That's whay I mean.

EDIT: Actually, did you read it as me saying demis never feel sexual attraction? 

...having said that, every demi is different. Back when I was aged 15, I did experience my first (and only) surge of PSA. Your experience may differ from mine.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

@Falling Leaves "Demi/Asexuality are comparable as they both describe states where a person is *physically incapable **of feeling sexual attraction, one is just to a greater extent than the other."*


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Falling Leaves said:


> It's physically impossible for me to feel sexual attraction to someone before forming some kind of emotional bond or connection. That's whay I mean.
> 
> ...having said that, every demi is different. Back when I was aged 15, I did experience my first (and only) surge of PSA. Your experience may differ from mine.



I agree but you have to take into mind that most people looking at demisexual are seeing it online, the definition and it seems a bit black and white, with no colors in between.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

JaySH said:


> @_chip_, I never claimed to be.


I see. Well, then....your definition of a demisexual was inaccurate to the fullest.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Whoops. Forgetthis post >.<


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

chip said:


> I agree but you have to take into mind that most people looking at demisexual are seeing it online, the definition and it seems a bit black and white, with no colors in between.


Sorry, I got confused thinking you were TWM >.< 

Please ignore my last post. I accidentally replied as if to him >.<

May I ask, why do you ask about physically impossible? Was it just because you didn't think I should be so absolute?

Fair enough.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Falling Leaves said:


> Sorry, I got confused thinking you were TWM >.<
> 
> Please ignore my last post. I accidentally replied as if to him >.<
> 
> ...



I was thinking of the difference between A sexual and Demisexual and while they may be similar, they are not when it comes to being sexually aroused. Demis do get sexually aroused, but not in a conventional manner like most others.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Falling Leaves said:


> Has anybody else noticed how, initially, a lot of people have a negative reaction to the Demisexual orientation?


I've noticed there are many people living like animals in the pure crude sense of the word (eating, living, having sex and almost eating their own feces) they are usually more aggressive and take it against others with more calm life. I don't like it... 

I believe demisexuals are fine, nothing bad with it. Each person experiences things differently, we don't have to agree we just have respect that


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

chip said:


> I see. Well, then....your definition of a demisexual was inaccurate to the fullest.


And, if I were Demi-sexual, it would not have been? 

I purposely mentioned Falling Leaves and Drewbie for a reason. I'm only just learning about it and attempted to give some understanding. If what I wrote was inaccurate, I expected they would eventually say so. Your battle is not with me. I haven't made negative comments, attacks, insulted your posts/ explanations or been negative in any way. Not all can say the same, on either side.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

TWN said:


> Then what is the motivation behind sex?
> 
> If there is no motivation does that mean demisexuals that have one-nights are just monkeys rubbing up against someone for no reason?
> 
> ...


I am sorry your views on sex are so narrow and our points are a bit too high.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

JaySH said:


> And, if I were Demi-sexual, it would not have been?
> 
> I purposely mentioned Falling Leaves and Drewbie for a reason. I'm only just learning about it and attempted to give some understanding. If what I wrote was inaccurate, I expected they would eventually say so. Your battle is not with me. I haven't made negative comments, attacks, insulted your posts/ explanations or been negative in any way. Not all can say the same, on either side.


I know you haven't been negative. >-< calm down >.> I am saying that when you explained it, it wasn't accurate. You are not demisexual so maybe that's why.


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

chip said:


> I know you haven't been negative. >-< calm down >.> I am saying that when you explained it, it wasn't accurate. You are not demisexual so maybe that's why.


I'm curious, what was inaccurate? Not fighting/arguing. It was very vague but was points made within the context of the posts from demisexuals here, that directly related to the questions posed by the user I quoted. So, my point of being here is to understand. If my understanding is "inaccurate to the fullest", please correct me. And, I don't mean that snarky. I'd rather leave here truly understanding it.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

TWN said:


> I think this proves that you guys need better representation.
> 
> Because chip did say that.
> 
> So instead of yelling at me, yell at the idiots that spew ignorance.


Text has no volume, but you still are spewing ignorance, so....


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> Then probably you are. A similar situation with my last gf is what made me realize I was demi. I had thought I was asexual all my life, but the closer I got to her... welll.....


This reminds me of when I first joined this site and I read "demisexuality" (I remember hoping that it mean thinking demons were hot > *thinks of his crush in a devil costume* > ... lol ... My Ne makes me seem juvenile  lol ) and I googled it and there were some websites that had said that it is not uncommon for people who are demisexual to originally identify as asexual and then one day feel a sexual attraction for an S.O. that they have been with for a long time. ... One of the sites may have went on about how this sudden attraction can affect non-sexual romantic relationships where one person is asexual and the other person is demisexual (but thought they were asexual).


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Other assumptions about demisexuals that I have witnessed: that they must be unattractive, therefore had to learn to "settle for less" because they can't "play the game" in dating and romance.. I have personally seen conventionally 'attractive' demisexuals however. There goes that theory as well, then. 

It really is sick though how some will try to make it about morals or self-esteem.. Would it be as widely accepted if they were attacking say, homosexuals that way, saying its a choice, and about self-esteem issues. I guess there are still people ignorant enough to try it, but far less than the volume of those who attack demisexuality -- at least in the online circles I run in.


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

Explain demisexuality in one, correct, sentence.

After ALL of the demi-sexuals agree on this ONE sentence, we can close this, and every other demi-sexual thread down.


But that will never happen because you guys all have separate meanings for the same sexuality.

You dont have to ask gay men twice about what their sexuality means; "I LIKE DICK".

Thats it.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

TWN said:


> Explain demisexuality in one, correct, sentence.
> 
> After ALL of the demi-sexuals agree on this ONE sentence, we can close this, and every other demi-sexual thread down.
> 
> ...


There would be no reason to never have another demisexual thread -- why censor them?

Demiseuxality: secondary physical attraction but not primary physical attraction. A demisexual likes the personality, -_then_- they find the physical attributes attractive. The wiki on it also explains it well. 

And I'm sure that "a gay man" even has a little more of a preference than "any dick will do.." They like a variety of different things, and there are even some gay demisexuals who might resent being told that their sexuality is as simple as "I like dick." 

A member a while back, it may have been nobleheart, proposed some demisexual scale similar to the kinsey scale, because sexuality isn't always so black and white, but more of a spectrum.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> Chip clearly also has no idea what demisexuality is. I have her on ignore so I only see her post if I click it. @_chip_ there need not be a bond in order to have sex. Speak for yourself when making such a statement. Again, demisexuality is about *SEXUAL ATTRACTION*.
> 
> A demisexual is only sexually attracted to people they have a bond with.
> 
> ...



A demisexual is only sexually attracted to people they have a bond with.


I have never said that people don't have sex, don't enjoy it etc. I said they're not true demisexuals. I wish josue would accept my pm apology, I mean him no ill will. :/


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

I really wish TWN would stop insulting people on this thread by name calling.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

TWN said:


> Explain demisexuality in one, correct, sentence.
> 
> After ALL of the demi-sexuals agree on this ONE sentence, we can close this, and every other demi-sexual thread down.
> 
> ...


One person on one website has a different definition of demisexuality, therefore, the widely accepted definition - which most people here _and_ everywhere else agree on - is wrong/invalid.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

And with that note, I might as well come back to this thread later, because when I was responded, I slept 3 hours in three days, and I am on drugs right now from a tooth pulling, so I apologize if I've actually contradicted what I've said. I'll feel like a silly ass later for it.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Falling Leaves said:


> One person on one website has a different definition of demisexuality, therefore, the widely accepted definition - which most people here agree on - is wrong.



I can't... stop.... LAUGHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XD


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

chip said:


> A demisexual is only sexually attracted to people they have a bond with.
> 
> 
> I have never said that people don't have sex, don't enjoy it etc. I said they're not true demisexuals. I wish josue would accept my pm apology, I mean him no ill will. :/


I don't have any PM from you, and I wasn't attacking you, personally, just what you said.

Either way, a demisexual who has sex without a bond is no less demi than one who has it after the bond. The act changes nothing.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> I don't have any PM from you, and I wasn't attacking you, personally, just what you said.
> 
> Either way, a demisexual who has sex without a bond is no less demi than one who has it after the bond. The act changes nothing.


I agree with you and promethea about that. I usually am not narrow minded like that. My pm was apologizing to you and stating that I don't hate you, and respect your ideas about being demisexual. Have a good day all of you.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

chip said:


> I agree with you and promethea about that. I usually am not narrow minded like that. My pm was apologizing to you and stating that I don't hate you, and respect your ideas about being demisexual. Have a good day all of you.


I'll accept it. I've removed you from ignore after all these months.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> I don't have any PM from you, and I wasn't attacking you, personally, just what you said.
> 
> Either way, a demisexual who has sex without a bond is no less demi than one who has it after the bond. The act changes nothing.


Agreed. 

Again, to pull the widely accepted + used definition (as in, most people agree with it) of demisexuality out *again* dry, it describes a state in which a person is incapable of feeling primary sexual attracti-. Actually, could you please excuse me a second?

*gets megaphone out*

A state in which a person is incapable of feeling primary sexual attraction

Within that definition, there is absolutely no comment on what situations the person does or doesn't have sex. The statement 'she had a one night stand' only falls in contradiction with _preconceived ideas_ about the definition, but not the definition in itself. 

Entering into a one night stand will not suddenly kick start your brain into feeling physical attraction, no more than masturbation or watching porn does.


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Falling Leaves said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Again, to pull the widely accepted + used definition (as in, most people agree with it) of demisexuality out *again* dry, it describes a state in which a person is incapable of feeling primary sexual attracti-. Actually, could you please excuse me a second?
> *
> ...


I wish i could thank the bolded part 1,000 times  Lmao.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

You guys have taught me some more about demisexualism. Thank you. I knew I should have studied more.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

When shallow is used in place of 'normal' or 'ordinary' or 'usual', it becomes an ordinary adjective and ceases to be a pejorative, by the way, for all the deep abnormals using it in that way.

There is no such thing as demisexual hate btw. Thats a ridiculous form of a self-persecution complex. Thats fine I suppose, but the transference of this complex into a moral attack on shallow sexuals is a form of "me so special" haughtiness up with which I shall not put, and neither should anyone else.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> When shallow is used in place of 'normal' or 'ordinary' or 'usual', it becomes an ordinary adjective and ceases to be a pejorative, by the way, for all the deep abnormals using it in that way.
> 
> There is no such thing as demisexual hate btw. Thats a ridiculous form of a self-persecution complex. Thats fine I suppose, but the transference of this complex into a moral attack on shallow sexuals is a form of "me so special" haughtiness up with which I shall not put, and neither should anyone else.


Anyone can be hated for just about anything.


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> When shallow is used in place of 'normal' or 'ordinary' or 'usual', it becomes an ordinary adjective and ceases to be a pejorative, by the way, for all the deep abnormals using it in that way.
> 
> There is no such thing as demisexual hate btw. Thats a ridiculous form of a self-persecution complex. Thats fine I suppose, but the transference of this complex into a moral attack on shallow sexuals is a form of "me so special" haughtiness up with which I shall not put, and neither should anyone else.


I would agree and disagree. And, I'm not Demisexual, to clarify ahead of time. But, and it was displayed by a user's posts in here, many people question the authenticity of Demisexuality and spew angry and hateful things because of it. Is this everyone? No. But, it does exist, whether you, yourself, have witnessed it or not. 

I agree with your statements on shallow, to a degree. To deny it is natural for many people to be attracted to physical traits, and label anyone who is as being shallow, is as offensive as those who are not Demisexual angrily questioning the validity of its existence, or down right calling all those who claim to be liars. 

However, for anyone who puts far more weight in another person's looks and status than the true core of their being, I'd say shallow is a fair label for anyone, be they Demisexual, Asexual or "Sexual" people, to identify them as. That's far different than merely feeling physical attraction and giving it some weight in your choices though. Either way, those are merely my opinions.

Edit: The moral attacks or not given exclusively by Demisexuals either. They've existed for years and have been done by both groups and individuals. Also, most Demisexual users in here made no negative comments regarding another's ability to feel physical sexual attraction for another or their choice to choose mates/SOs while using this as a factor. They are an isolated few and, I would argue, pale in comparison to those who ignorantly insult the Demisexual identity.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> When shallow is used in place of 'normal' or 'ordinary' or 'usual', it becomes an ordinary adjective and ceases to be a pejorative, by the way, for all the deep abnormals using it in that way.
> There is no such thing as demisexual hate btw. Thats a ridiculous form of a self-persecution complex. Thats fine I suppose, but the transference of this complex into a moral attack on shallow sexuals is a form of "me so special" haughtiness up with which I shall not put, and neither should anyone else.


this

demisexuals aside, it seems to be a common practice these days to try to identify with a minority for the sake of playing victim and acting like the world hates you and/or doesn't understand you (when in reality it probably isn't thinking about you much in the first place). people are going to dislike you, people are going to misunderstand you, it's a part of life. I really wish people would stop being so sensitive to harmless negative opinions, especially when they try to counter with pretending that they don't care what anyone else thinks (....right, cuz you just made a big deal out of it for no reason). people don't have an obligation to accept you if they don't want to


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

snail said:


> So, after reading through this thread, pretty much everyone agrees that hating demisexuals is okay as long as a demisexual is, like me, against sexual objectification. Somehow, wanting people to be treated fairly is seen as an extremist viewpoint no matter who has it, but it is considered even more hateful when it is held by a demisexual who couldn't possibly understand what it is like to fetishize people's bodies like "normal" people do.


I'm not sure who told you sex and dating were meant to be fair, but you're wrong. Relationships by their very nature discriminate against all kinds of people all the time. Nothing about sex or relationships was ever meant to be fair and to think everyone who comes along deserves a fair shake is a very odd concept to hold. 

Also, talking down to people with a self-imposed sense of superiority is a surefire way to make sure no one will care about your position. So keep it up, you're doing your argument a big favor talking that way.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

android654 said:


> I'm not sure who told you sex and dating were meant to be fair, but you're wrong. Relationships by their very nature discriminate against all kinds of people all the time. Nothing about sex or relationships was ever meant to be fair and to think everyone who comes along deserves a fair shake is a very odd concept to hold.
> 
> Also, talking down to people with a self-imposed sense of superiority is a surefire way to make sure no one will care about your position. So keep it up, you're doing your argument a big favor talking that way.


Why should we tolerate bigotry in any context? I think all things should be fair, and it is by choice that we make relationships unfair. 

If I were to speak to racists as though their attitudes were inferior, few people would object, because most of us don't identify with racists. The only reason anyone has a problem with my being against this particular form of prejudice is that it is very common, and they feel personally defensive about it. 

I doubt my approach is hardening any hearts that weren't already closed-off. At this point, I am more concerned with making sure others like me know that they are not wrong, and that they are not alone.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

snail said:


> Why should we tolerate bigotry in any context? I think all things should be fair, and it is by choice that we make relationships unfair.
> 
> If I were to speak to racists as though their attitudes were inferior, few people would object, because most of us don't identify with racists. The only reason anyone has a problem with my being against this particular form of prejudice is that it is very common, and they feel personally defensive about it.
> 
> I doubt my approach is hardening any hearts that weren't already closed-off. At this point, I am more concerned with making sure others like me know that they are not wrong, and that they are not alone.


You actually think that people that look for a mate based on looks are being prejudiced somehow? No... Not at all. In fact, I kind of agree that demisexuality goes against nature. We should naturally look for a partner based on how they look. That's what animals do.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> You actually think that people that look for a mate based on looks are being prejudiced somehow? No... Not at all. In fact, I kind of agree that demisexuality goes against nature. We should naturally look for a partner based on how they look. That's what animals do.


Yes, it is looks-based discrimination, and it is the most popular form of objectification. It is dehumanizing, and I don't know why any self-respecting person would ever put up with it when it is possible to find people who will love you authentically in a non-materialistic way. Wanting someone for how s/he looks is the same as wanting someone for his/her money, which is something most people will agree is evil. The body is not a person any more than a wallet is a person.

If someone were only willing to hire white people, that person would be recognized as a racist, but a person who will, for example, only date blondes is not similarly judged. I think it is time we do something about that by discussing the problem openly. I don't care what animals do. Humans have free choice and ethical responsibility, while animals act primarily on instinct. We can decide to do what is right.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

So, if we go on emotional bonds first, can there not be personality-based discrimination among demisexuals ... ?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

snail said:


> Yes, it is looks-based discrimination, and it is the most popular form of objectification. It is dehumanizing, and I don't know why any self-respecting person would ever put up with it when it is possible to find people who will love you authentically in a non-materialistic way. Wanting someone for how s/he looks is the same as wanting someone for his/her money, which is something most people will agree is evil, because the body is not a person any more than a wallet is a person.
> 
> If someone were only willing to hire white people, that person would be recognized as a racist, but a person who will, for example, only date blondes is not similarly judged. I think it is time we do something about that by discussing the problem openly. I don't care what animals do. Humans have free choice and ethical responsibility, while animals act primarily on instinct. We can decide to do what is right.


It's not discrimination. It's preference. Would you eat a food you don't like? Would you call that discrimination against the food or the person who made it? No... You just don't like it. Why should people force themselves to be with someone they don't like? You can't honestly tell me you would give anybody in the world an equal opportunity. It would be a lie and you know it.

I'm demisexual and even I have minor preferences for how I would like my partner to look, dress, etc. Very minor and not really important, but they exist. I need a partner who I can actually look at without cringing, and that's not discrimination at all. I am not denying anybody a right due to how they look. It's not their right to be with me, so you can't really discriminate in regards to mate selection. Discrimination is unjust treatment based on religion, sex, age etc... How, exactly, is not dating them unjust? It's not like my body is their right. It's mine, and I give it to whom I choose.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

snail said:


> Why should we tolerate bigotry in any context? I think all things should be fair, and it is by choice that we make relationships unfair.
> 
> If I were to speak to racists as though their attitudes were inferior, few people would object, because most of us don't identify with racists. The only reason anyone has a problem with my being against this particular form of prejudice is that it is very common, and they feel personally defensive about it.
> 
> I doubt my approach is hardening any hearts that weren't already closed-off. At this point, I am more concerned with making sure others like me know that they are not wrong, and that they are not alone.


What is going on in your head that you equate hate and racism to sexual attraction? This is why INFPs get such a bad rep in MBTI circles, you admit you have no understanding of people nor how or why they think things then you fly off into extremes to justify a position you've already admitted you can't comprehend. 

If you can't understand the difference between wanting to orchestrate genocide, considering a group of people less than you and not finding someone attractive then your head is warped.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> So, if we go on emotional bonds first, can there not be personality-based discrimination among demisexuals ... ?


Don't you dare discriminate against my personality! Apparently I'm entitled to everyone wanting to be with me regardless of who I am.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

> If you can't understand the difference between wanting to orchestrate genocide, considering a group of people less than you and not finding someone attractive then your head is warped.


If you can't understand the difference between an argument and a strawman of an argument than your head is warped. 

Snail never made any such moral equivalency. Do you want to discuss snail's argument or your strawman of it? If you prefer to discuss your strawman you should realize you're simply arguing with yourself. 



> What is going on in your head that you equate hate and racism to sexual attraction? This is why INFPs get such a bad rep in MBTI circles, you admit you have no understanding of people nor how or why they think things then you fly off into extremes to justify a position you've already admitted you can't comprehend.


Is there a point to this post other than to make personal attacks against snail?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

koalaroo said:


> So, if we go on emotional bonds first, can there not be personality-based discrimination among demisexuals ... ?


We should be concerned with compatibility. Selecting people for their character is the opposite of unfair discrimination. The personality is part of who a person is. The body is not. It is just a corpse that a person animates for a while. The difference between loving a body and loving a person is the difference between falling in love with a car, and falling in love with the driver. 



ISFjosue0098 said:


> It's not discrimination. It's preference. Would you eat a food you don't like? Would you call that discrimination against the food or the person who made it? No... You just don't like it. Why should people force themselves to be with someone they don't like? You can't honestly tell me you would give anybody in the world an equal opportunity. It would be a lie and you know it.
> 
> I'm demisexual and even I have minor preferences for how I would like my partner to look, dress, etc. Very minor and not really important, but they exist. I need a partner who I can actually look at without cringing, and that's not discrimination at all. I am not denying anybody a right due to how they look. It's not their right to be with me, so you can't really discriminate in regards to mate selection. Discrimination is unjust treatment based on religion, sex, age etc... How, exactly, is not dating them unjust? It's not like my body is their right. It's mine, and I give it to whom I choose.


People are not food. Food is an object. A person is a subject. Nobody should have to be with someone they dislike on a personal level, but the body is not a "someone." Before I was married, I would have given anyone in the world an equal opportunity as long as his values were compatible with mine and his character was suitable. You can call me a liar if you like, but I am telling the truth. I chose my husband based solely on who he was, after searching most of my life for someone who was compatible with me.

I don't think you are a demisexual if your partner must look a certain way in order to arouse you. 

Discriminating unfairly is giving one person preference over another for something that is not an ethically significant choice, which has nothing to do with his/her ability to function in a certain role, and which is not part of his/her character. 

What a person looks like does not make him/her good or evil, does not make him/her a better or worse spouse, and does not define him/her as a person.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

android654 said:


> Also, talking down to people with a self-imposed sense of superiority is a surefire way to make sure no one will care about your position. So keep it up, you're doing your argument a big favor talking that way.


Is the irony of this statement intended? 


android654 said:


> I'm not sure who told you sex and dating were meant to be fair, but you're wrong. Relationships by their very nature discriminate against all kinds of people all the time. Nothing about sex or relationships was ever meant to be fair and to think everyone who comes along deserves a fair shake is a very odd concept to hold. .


But that's not exactly what she said, is it? She is only against using something as superficial as looks based discrimination. 

She is quite discriminating on other things that are far more important than the way someone "looks". It's a lazy and fallacious form of argument you're engaging in.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

snail said:


> We should be concerned with compatibility. Selecting people for their character is the opposite of unfair discrimination. The personality is part of who a person is. The body is not. It is just a corpse that a person animates for a while. The difference between loving a body and loving a person is the difference between falling in love with a car, and falling in love with the driver.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bolded what I am replying to specifically. I agree that a human is not an object, but that's it.

1. I never said she has to look a certain way to arouse me. I said I need to be with someone who I can look at without cringing. I never mentioned arousal. Chances are, no matter how "good looking" she is, she will not arouse me. Out of 7 partners I've had, only one actually aroused me. So it has nothing to do with arousal.

2. Ethics has NOTHING to do with mate selection.

3. It's obvious that what they look like does not make them better or worse. Nobody even said that. But just because one person is good doesn't mean I'm going to date her based solely on that fact. What if she's just someone I can't stand to look at? Just like art, some people appeal to me aesthetically (I don't mind looking at them) and others don't (they are kinda hard to look at...).


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> 2. Ethics has NOTHING to do with mate selection.


Why? Please demonstrate why mate selection, especially the process used for such, is not an ethically significant choice. I'd assert that in most ethical systems, any form of person to person interaction involves a series of ethical choices. Why should "mate selection" be exempt?


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

snail said:


> So, after reading through this thread, pretty much everyone agrees that hating demisexuals is okay as long as a demisexual is, like me, against sexual objectification.


First off, I don't believe in hating anyone ^__^ ... It is a personal value that I only hold for myself, because some people may think that it is justified or fair in certain case, so I can't expect everyone to feel that way. It would not be fair. But I do my best not to hate and I don't endorse hating. I think everyone could use some love ^__^ and friendship ^__^

That being said, I won't agree with everyone and I do think that sometimes it is important to say that saying certain things or doing certain things will rub people the wrong way.



> Somehow, wanting people to be treated fairly is seen as an extremist viewpoint no matter who has it, but it is considered even more hateful when it is held by a demisexual who couldn't possibly understand what it is like to fetishize people's bodies like "normal" people do. Mine is a perspective that supposedly warrants instant vilification and means that I am a hateful person. Calling someone superficial is considered offensive, even if it is true.


But you were calling all those people "evil" first. And those people don't think of themselves as evil, they think of themselves as "good" or at least human. And, I think it is important to remember that they are human, with different values than you ... trying to do what they think is right/best, just like you are.

That being said, I don't think I have a say in how people choose romantic and/or sexual partners. Not to mention, that if some people really can't feel sexual attraction for people who look a certain way, then I think it would be even more hurtful to be "fair" as the person may feel as though they have been lead on for a long time and, after so much time of their S.O. who finds other people sexually attractive not finding them sexually attractive, that long and strong bond may wear on their self-esteem. In some cases being "fair" may not be a good thing.

Of course we are only talking about "fair" with regards to looks .... There is also "fair" with regards to sex, sexual orientation, location in the world (most people can't just move to the other side of the world), and other things ... but we can't be fair with all things that we can not choose or change (or change within the foreseeable future).

Heck, you can somewhat affect how smart/intelligent you are and in what areas you are intelligent, but that only goes so far ... and many people want a partner with X amount of intelligence (one could argue that that is shallow as well, since many aspects of our intelligence come from our biology ... and maybe even the environment we grew up in)



> I see other demisexuals essentially saying "Oh, don't think less of us! We aren't all like that, because it's soooo horrible to think looks-based discrimination is wrong... Only the bad ones do that, because they are arrogant elitists. They're in the minority, though, and the rest of us are okay."
> 
> *rolls eyes*


But you are disregarding how other people feel sexual attraction ... As I asked a couple times in this thread ... What if some people can only experience Primary sexual attraction ... or secondary sexual attraction does not do much for them ... or maybe takes years for them (so they find random strangers sexy, but they can't find their partner sexy for a long time). Being "fair" to the potential partners may be more hurtful, because you are not being "fair" to how someone experiences attraction and the type of relationship they are seeking (If they just want a one night stand, they could have sex with anyone, but they would rather be with someone they felt an instant sexual attraction for, I would imagine).

And, do we really have a say in how people choose (adult) partners in not-abusive relationships? ... I don't think we do. ... I think you are also forgetting that many people like having a partner that thinks their looks are sexy. ... Romantic relationships are not a need (we need friends and we need sexual release, that is what masturbation if for, but we don't need to be in a relationship) ... those relationships are a desire and people are free to want anything they want and try to find a partner that matches those wants who wants to be with them as well. And I don't have a say in what someone wants nor am I going to tell them to form romantic relationships with people they do not want to be with (that sounds like a recipe for an unhealthy and/or bound to fail relationship in many cases)



> The message that attitude sends is that you can be a demisexual as long as you aren't also concerned with human rights issues, with expecting to be loved authentically, or with being an anti-porn feminist. The moment you stand up against superficiality, people will assume your desire for equality comes from ignorance, and from being too self-absorbed to be able to relate to the poor sexuals who supposedly can't control their shallow lusts.


How is telling people how they choose a partner a humans rights issues? 
Protecting kids from pediphiles is a human rights issue. Stopping abuse is a human rights issue. Stopping abuse of people who are deemed "unattractive" by society (I'm talking about bullying, laughing at them for being "unattractive", and so on) is a human rights issue.

But rejecting someone (for any reason) is not abuse ... it is not bullying ... so I fail to see how it is a human rights issue

If you were rejected over and over again, I suppose that would hurt ... but it would hurt for any reason ... but, if you have friends that you love, you should have a support network and your emotional needs taken care of ... No one needs to be in a romantic relationship (and, I believe, if you go in with the mindset that it is a need or that you need to be with that person, you may create a very toxic relationship) ... We are with people because we want to be ... We make a commitment to people because we want them in our lives for a very, very, very, very long time (and they want to be with us as well)



> Most of those lusts are learned from the media. The people who think demisexuals like me are persecuting them for some innate sexual preference are wrong. They would have completely different visual lusts if they had grown up in a different culture that valued something else as the socially agreed upon ideal. It isn't a natural set of preferences people were born with, even if it is normal here to treat people as though their purpose were partly decorative instead of just loving each other. It is a choice, and it is a bad one because it is unfairly discriminatory.


Okay, I agree that culture and media affects an individual's preference (if they experience primary attraction), but there is still a lot of variation ... if you take any body, I bet there is someone in our culture that will find that body attractive.

Now, does our culture over emphasis looks and should the media show "traditionally" physically "unattractive" people as being attractive? Absolutely

But whether someone's sexual desires comes from biology or culture does that really matter? Does that invalidate their sexual wants if there sexual desire was influenced from decades of cultural influence? Is it not still how they feel and want? I agree that it matters when it comes to changing our culture ... but if sexual attraction comes from biology, culture, or both - does it change the validity of an adult's (influenced by decades of their environment) sexual attraction for people?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> I bolded what I am replying to specifically. I agree that a human is not an object, but that's it.
> 
> 1. I never said she has to look a certain way to arouse me. I said I need to be with someone who I can look at without cringing. I never mentioned arousal. Chances are, no matter how "good looking" she is, she will not arouse me. Out of 7 partners I've had, only one actually aroused me. So it has nothing to do with arousal.
> 
> ...


Thank you for acknowledging that people are not objects, like food or paintings, which are used to satisfy the senses. I am glad that you recognize that we fall into a different category and exist for something other than someone else's consumption.

1. A person can arouse a demisexual for reasons that have nothing to do with aesthetics. If you cannot be aroused at all, you are likely an asexual. You say you have been aroused before. What was it about your one partner that aroused you? I think the definition of demisexuality needs to be further clarified, so that instead of just describing the state of experiencing no primary sexual attraction, it also describes the state of experiencing no primary sexual revulsion. The two are closely linked. 

2. What I meant was that if a person is unethical, then rejecting him/her is not unfair discrimination. I think we should strive to select partners we consider ethical, and to select them in an ethical manner. It is fair to select a partner who shares your values, because his/her ability to function appropriately in the relationship can be dependent on it.

3. If you would reject someone because you can't stand looking at him/her, then you are being unfair. People are not art. They do not exist for the purpose of looking a certain way for your visual pleasure. People are worth more than that.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

JaySH said:


> You're absolutely right, in general. At the same time, people don't need to just accept being judged based on misconceptions regarding something they are associated with. Should people not try to raise awareness when they hear inaccurate information being used as a reason to negatively judge that which they are associated with?
> Before this thread and a conversation I had 2 weeks ago I thought Demisexuality meant they had no sexual preference in regards to sexual attraction. Men, women, young,old, black, white, hairy, bald, metro, bushwhack, *******...none. They'd sleep with anybody. That was my understanding. I was ignorant. I didn't know what it was and thought I had at least an idea. And, my idea often caused an eye-roll when I went to someone's page and saw it in their "about me" section.
> Now I have a firm grasp on what it means. And, I know...I was wrong.
> They are explaining and clearing up confusion surrounding it, for those who are letting them. Is there not merit in that? Does that not hold value? Hate was a strong word to use...negativity would have probably been more fitting but, the point of the thread isn't about bashing or getting attention and hasn't been from day one, not that I've seen anyway.
> Im glad it was started. I know more than I did before it was here. That has value to me.


yes, but there is a difference between a thread called "Demisexual Hate" and "Misunderstandings About Demisexuals". the former gives the impression of "everyone hates me! you all should feel guilty for not accepting me"


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Uviteru said:


> If you can't understand the difference between an argument and a strawman of an argument than your head is warped.
> 
> Snail never made any such moral equivalency. Do you want to discuss snail's argument or your strawman of it? If you prefer to discuss your strawman you should realize you're simply arguing with yourself.
> 
> ...


Actually there is a point. Snail's position is a respectable one to make for herself. She has chosen to impose those beliefs on everyone by likening those who feel arousal from physical attraction, and letting this be a factor in who we have sex/ are involved with, to those who partake in atrocities such as racism, sexism and the like. 

She has a right to her opinion and we have a right to be offended by it. She's formed this opinion without herself being capable of feeling physical attraction. She's also made the claim that the general consensus of the thread was that it is alright to be demisexual ...wait...let me quote it:

"So, after reading through this thread, pretty much everyone agrees that hating demisexuals is okay as long as a demisexual is, like me, against sexual objectification. Somehow, wanting people to be treated fairly is seen as an extremist viewpoint no matter who has it, but it is considered even more hateful when it is held by a demisexual who couldn't possibly understand what it is like to fetishize people's bodies like "normal" shallow people do. Mine is a perspective that supposedly warrants instant vilification and means that I am a hateful person. Calling someone shallow is considered offensive, even if it is true."

This is as much a strawman tactic as any, as it was not the purpose of the thread, nor was this view shared by many. As a matter of fact, I stated (though not in so many words) it was shared by sexuals and demisexuals alike and wasn't the norm to view people as shallow for physical attraction being a factor in mate selection for demisexuals anymore than it was for sexuals. That is a values thing and is part of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. 


Snail's opinion is her opinion and she chose to come in here today, use a view stated by 1 user and "victimize" herself by making it out everyone was against her. 

No! I and others do not agree with her beliefs and are against her imposing those beliefs on us and associating us with people we find abhorrent! I have desires that are triggered by physical attractions and are either influenced further or diminished by the persons personality. Both matter to me. I will not stand for being put in the same class as a racist bigot ass because "Snail says so so it must be true". 

Snail's posts were aggressive and accused a great many users of stating something they had not. She dramatized the opinions of few and used it as if it were the opinions of many. And the judgments within her posts on a sexual class (all those attracted to someone physically) are as discriminatory as what she claims the act if choosing a mate partially based on looks is!

Who is she to judge?!?!

And the attacks are on her aggressive and insulting posts. Not her!

The thread is about Demisexuality. This is not a view shared by all of them. She tried using it as a sounding board then got offended other demisexuals did not necessarily agree. It wasnt the purpose of the thread and the view she is expressing has nothing to do with Demisexuality! 

Nuff said! End the argument and get back to the purpose of the thread, which this is unfortunately doing the opposite of!


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> yes, but there is a difference between a thread called "Demisexual Hate" and "Misunderstandings About Demisexuals". the former gives the impression of "everyone hates me! you all should feel guilty for not accepting me"


You're right. And the OP already addressed it and apologized. Poor word choice does not change the purpose though, ya know?


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

android654 said:


> Don't you dare discriminate against my personality! Apparently I'm entitled to everyone wanting to be with me regardless of who I am.


Lmao!


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Uviteru said:


> Why? Please demonstrate why mate selection, especially the process used for such, is not an ethically significant choice. I'd assert that in most ethical systems, any form of person to person interaction involves a series of ethical choices. Why should "mate selection" be exempt?


because the goal is to go with someone with whom mutual attraction is present, good chemistry is present and you know you can work together long term. none of this has to do with morality. people have been marrying who they're "supposed to" marry for millennia, and most have ended up miserable.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

JaySH said:


> You're right. And the OP already addressed it and apologized. Poor word choice does not change the purpose though, ya know?


I know (I'm an ENFP, my weak Ti/Fe and I can empathize with poor word choice lol). I don't have much of a problem with this thread, I just wanted to point that out in case someone hadn't already


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I know (I'm an ENFP, my weak Ti/Fe and I can empathize with poor word choice lol). I don't have much of a problem with this thread, I just wanted to point that out in case someone hadn't already


As am/can I


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Mr. Meepers said:


> First off, I don't believe in hating anyone ^__^ ... It is a personal value that I only hold for myself, because some people may think that it is justified or fair in certain case, so I can't expect everyone to feel that way. It would not be fair. But I do my best not to hate and I don't endorse hating. I think everyone could use some love ^__^ and friendship ^__^
> 
> That being said, I won't agree with everyone and I do think that sometimes it is important to say that saying certain things or doing certain things will rub people the wrong way.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you are willing to approach this topic in a thoughtful manner rather than just attacking me for my views, like the others seem to be doing. Than you for showing respect. It is appreciated.

I admit that I have trouble empathizing with people who embrace unfairness, so if expressing my views made them defensive, I just wasn't thinking about how it would feel to be in their position, being criticized for something they had always taken for granted as being okay. I suppose it must be similar to how I felt when I first learned that my vegetarianism was still harmful to animals because buying dairy products still involved practicing speciesism, condoning slavery, and indirectly supporting the veal industry. I might have been a bit defensive at first, because I thought I was already doing the best I could. Being told my effortss weren't good enough hurt. Eventually I became a vegan, but it took longer than it should have because I wanted to see myself as a good person even when I was still doing something evil.

I think that's how shallow people probably feel when I criticize them. They think, "But I am not a terrible person, because I don't judge people on looks alone. It's not the only thing I care about. I'm not as bad as someone who is so caught up in looks that s/he places no value at all on character." So they feel attacked instead of changing, because they want their current position to be good enough. Nobody wants to have to dislike himself/herself, and I don't really think making people hate themselves is a good thing. Maybe the points I make will plant a seed of thought, though, and over the course of their lives, they will start to change because of my efforts, in the same way that I finally felt so guilty for my evils against animals that I had to change my ways.

In response to your idea that it would be a bad idea for a person to get into a relationship with someone s/he wasn't attracted to just for the sake of being fair, I definitely see your point. If someone has to be dishonest to do it, I don't advocate it. Ideally, it would be possible for a person to actually feel attracted to qualities that matter rather than treating life like a beauty pageant in which the highest levels of respect are reserved for pretty/handsome people. I am only saying that a person should feel no negative judgment based on looks, not that one should lie about his/her feelings in order to merely seem like s/he feels no negative judgement based on looks. Likewise, an ethical person should feel no racial prejudice. Choosing not to act on racial prejudices should be an extension of having a non-racist attitude, and should not have to be an act of dishonesty.

It is a human rights issue because looks-based discrimination affects plenty of areas of life besides just relationships, and causes some people to be unjustly penalized for things they can't (or shouldn't have to) control. I would rather live in a world where people are valued for their character instead of for some feature of their bodies, such as skin color, sex, etc. That was what the leaders of the civil rights movement wanted, too. I just want to take it to the greatest extreme I can, because it is a good thing.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Mr. Meepers
I'm glad there are people like you in this world, but I'm certainly not one of them =)


----------



## JaySH (Jul 29, 2012)

snail said:


> I'm glad you are willing to approach this topic in a thoughtful manner rather than just attacking me for my views, like the others seem to be doing. Than you for showing respect. It is appreciated.
> Nope. No one is attacking your views. It is you attacking others for theirs and them attacking your attack.
> I admit that I have trouble *empathizing with people who embrace unfairness*, so if expressing my views made them defensive, I just wasn't thinking about how it would feel to be in their position, being *criticized for something they had always taken for granted as being okay*.
> 
> ...




Your indirect attacks on all those who disagree are still attacks. It is you attacking others for their beliefs. It is you insulting others for their beliefs. No one has said your view is not a good one to have for you, personally, so it is not a personal attack. You have stated the opposite in regards to all those who don't share your view!


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

@_snail_

_"It is a human rights issue because looks-based discrimination affects plenty of areas of life besides just relationships, and causes some people to be unjustly penalized for things they can't (or shouldn't have to) control. I would rather live in a world where people are valued for their character instead of for some feature of their bodies, such as skin color, sex, etc. That was what the leaders of the civil rights movement wanted, too. I just want to take it to the greatest extreme I can, because it is a good thing._"

I think you're exaggerating right now and I suspect this is a personal matter. I think that you have been a victim yourself and you're projecting a personal matter. Correct me if I am wrong anytime.

I can read a person's character by just looking at him/her. The physical and mental are entwined ( even so called attractive people can be shallow and it shows for example so this is not something I am looking for, the Rihanna's of this world) but not a lot of people are capable of this though. I admit that I mostly date pretty people and I think that happens because we see that we have something in common and there is chemistry taking place but like I said above, I have also seen a part of her character already. So I don't date just any pretty person, I probably spotted something, something beautiful/interesting that intrigues me and I want to get to know that person. Right there I am subjectifying an object. We are objects until the moment another person enters the scene and perception takes place. (You don't date yourself after all) 

Human rights you say? Don't go there please. You're diminishing human rights right now. I can show a few pics of kids being raped by something disgusting animal that likes to prey on kids in South East Asia. They need human rights, not you. You have choice, either give in to some silly society's standard or not. Those kids can't escape the clutches of some filthy Japanese or American white guy.

I appreciate your views and you make sense sometimes but don't go extreme. Shallow people seek shallow people and intelligent people mostly end up with an intelligent person to simplify this somewhat. There is someone out there for everyone and we all have our subjective ideas of how things should be. Just live and let live and let people decide in their own pace what suits them best. It's process of change and adaption but also an investigation to get to know yourself and therefore others. My ideas about relationships has changed a lot over the years and every situation demands a different type of relationship or an adaption within the current relationship.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

So, getting back on topic...

To me it seems a bit pretentious to label oneself as demisexual. It's almost as if to say that one is _innately_ above the "natural" rules of human attraction; just another way for people to feel special, unique, and deep. There is ample scientific evidence that suggests homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality are biologically distinguishable sexualities. Demisexuality and pansexuality on the other hand seem more on the side of ideologically motivated, and that's what rubs me the wrong way. The latter two seem, to me, like conscious choices. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

And even if there is a biological distinction, the label is undoubtedly over/misused by people for ideological and political reasons.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Snail I think you have good intentions and are not a bad person or anything, and I respect your views and your right to express yourself however you like and be with whoever you like for whatever reason you like, and I know you mean no harm, but some of the things you've said I think are so, so, _so_ wrong, my principles (or if you want to be less charitable, maybe my ego lol) prevents me from not responding to it. I actually do have a problem with this form of prejudice you're engaging in, and it has absolutely nothing to do with it being a "common" prejudice. Furthermore, I feel no obligation to defend or justify my personal romantic or sexual preferences to you or anyone else, no offense intended--I'm comfortable with who I am in that department, I'm sure you are as well. The problem I have is you are engaging in absolutist idealism and this is a dangerous path. Look at some of the things you've said here:


snail said:


> If I were to speak to racists as though their attitudes were inferior, few people would object, because most of us don't identify with racists.





snail said:


> If someone were only willing to hire white people, that person would be recognized as a racist, but a person who will, for example, only date blondes is not similarly judged.


You can't equate the criteria by which an individual chooses a sexual or romantic partner to racism! No way man...I'm honestly surprised that you can't see what's wrong about this. First of all, look at how racism manifests in the real world, and look at how this prejudice you're speaking against manifests. Racism is perpetuated on a _mass scale_ socially and globally specifically to disenfranchise, oppress, and/or eliminate a racially defined out group from society. As far as I can tell, the effects of this prejudice you're speaking of are solely in the personal realm--someone may be rejected romantically or sexually on an "unfair basis." First of all, this is an individual interaction and you can't compare it in scale. There's no group being oppressed here, unless its practically everyone, because practically everyone has been rejected at some point due to not being found attractive by a potential partner. Second, what you are essentially proposing is that someone is acting out of "prejudice" when choosing a sexual partner, and that their discrimination in doing so is "unfair." I'll quote something else you said:


snail said:


> Discriminating unfairly is giving one person preference over another for something that is not an ethically significant choice, *which has nothing to do with his/her ability to function in a certain role,* and which is not part of his/her character.


I bolded the key thing that jumped out of me in this quote: If I'm not attracted to somebody, for whatever reason, then obviously the quality that makes them unattractive to me is going to leave them unable to function in the role of being a romantic and sexual partner for me. There seems to be some having cake and eating it too going on here. As far as I can understand someone's sexual orientation is generally understood to be outside of their control. Whether they are born with it right out of the womb or its something that becomes ingrained in them through socialization and environment might be debatable, but I think we all agree its not a matter of choice. On the one hand, you are a "demisexual," you don't experience physical attractiveness, that's just the way you are and we need to accept you for who you are. I have no problem with that--I'm not sure the label is necessary (that's another argument), but I have no problem with you thinking this way about sex and relationships. It's not my place to tell you what you should be attracted to or what sexual and romantic decisions you should be making. On the other hand, though, the shoe doesn't seem to fit when we put it on a "sexual"--they are evil, shallow, superficial, brainwashed drones to the media. These are all ways you have characterized people who don't share your views on this subject (I can provide examples if you like). So, on the one hand, you're a feminist (more on this in a bit) and we should respect all people for their sexuality. On the other hand though, people who aren't fortunate to be enlightened demisexuals are "evil," they are "shallow," "superficial," or at least their actions are. Do you see how this contradicts with ostensible respect for sexualities that differ from your own? You wouldn't support a straight person saying gay people were shallow and superficial because they weren't enlightened enough to appreciate the beauty of a woman, why is it okay when talking about people who experience conventional sexual attractiveness? This comes off less like feminism or sexual pluralism and more like the biopolitics of theocracy, where sexuality is governed by absolutist rules and values rather than a respect for individual preference or orientation.


snail said:


> It gets complicated when it is both an involuntary aspect of my sexuality AND something I have strong ethical feelings about as a feminist who opposes sexual objectification.


Honest question: What strain of feminist thought or even individual feminist do you think would agree with the line of thinking you've been espousing here? You're essentially saying that certain people, when they make choices about their sexual lives, are _wrong_ in those choices, and that the criteria by which they determine what partners they choose is wrong and needs to be corrected. I don't think anyone progressive really has a problem with critically analyzing our sexual preferences and being aware of society's influence on them. That's a good thing. But you go too far when you start proscribing acceptable criteria by which someone can choose a sexual or romantic partner (barring obvious things that shouldn't be allowed like a non-consenting partner, a child, someone forced to sell their body, etc)! You say you are acting out of feminism, but what sort of feminism finds it acceptable to say that people (of any gender or orientation) can't choose the partners they wish, for any reason they wish? Let's look at the logical extension of your thought here: If someone rejects someone because they find the person physically unattractive, though they may like them as a person, in your view, they acted wrongly. So what is the right course of action? To have sex with this person they're not attracted to? Isn't this kind of, well, wrong, saying people should have sex with people they're not attracted to because doing otherwise is a violation of your morals? You're saying people's sexual behavior must conform to your own standards of acceptable, ethical, and moral sexual behavior, aka the exact same thing your standard homophobe is doing. You may think your discrimination is justified but the discrimination of the homophobe is not--that's all well and good, but the homophobe feels the same way about you.


snail said:


> I admit that I have trouble empathizing with people who embrace unfairness, so if expressing my views made them defensive, I just wasn't thinking about how it would feel to be in their position, being criticized for something they had always taken for granted as being okay. I suppose it must be similar to how I felt when I first learned that my vegetarianism was still harmful to animals because buying dairy products still involved practicing speciesism, condoning slavery, and indirectly supporting the veal industry. I might have been a bit defensive at first, because I thought I was already doing the best I could. Being told my effortss weren't good enough hurt. Eventually I became a vegan, but it took longer than it should have because I wanted to see myself as a good person even when I was still doing something evil.


And here I have to take you to task again for what I see as blatant contradictions in your thought. Regardless of being vegan, I doubt you lead a wholly fair and wholly equitable life yourself. Do you realize what a privilege it is that you live in a developed country where you have the privilege of choosing to be vegan? You didn't begin flawed and then end up at an endpoint of moral purity when you became a vegan. Your entire existence, like the existence of any middle-class person in a developed country, is unfair and inequitable. I don't say that to be mean, the same is true of my own existence. I don't say that to dismiss your ideas either--you could dismiss my own the same way. What I can't not criticize is your absolute tunnel vision. Your existence in the way you understand it is impossible under an equitable and fair organization of society, yet you are an opponent of unfairness because you...are a vegan and think people should only choose sexual and romantic partners absent any physical criteria? I am sorry, but that is a complete absurdity. Further, I can't help but comment on how arrogantly you portray yourself here, as being a flawed person who eventually realized the error of her ways and became a vegan out of absolution, and maybe all of us evil shallow people could learn a lesson or two from you. Don't take this attitude--no one ever learned anything from being assured that they're correct and everyone arguing with them is a bad person looking for a reason to feel less bad about themselves.


snail said:


> It is a human rights issue because looks-based discrimination affects plenty of areas of life besides just relationships, and causes some people to be unjustly penalized for things they can't (or shouldn't have to) control. I would rather live in a world where people are valued for their character instead of for some feature of their bodies, such as skin color, sex, etc. That was what the leaders of the civil rights movement wanted, too. I just want to take it to the greatest extreme I can, because it is a good thing.


I apologize again, but absolutely not. The Civil Rights Movement was about social ills, social prejudices and disenfranchisements and oppressions that affected entire groups of people. People did not go out and get sprayed with firehoses, beaten by police, and chewed up by dogs to fight for the right of people not to be discriminated against for physical reasons by potential sex and romance partners. This is not analogous, and I don't say this to hurt you, but many of those leaders would likely be offended to see you invoking them in this way, for your own personal ideological crusade that they likely did not share. Again, please don't take any of this as an attack on you personally. I respect you enough to be honest and not hold back about where I feel you're wrong. I also am concerned because it seems like you're really in danger of turning yourself into a zealot--you are esentially saying that there is only one ethical way by which people can express, experience and make decisions about their sexuality, and people who do not conform to this method are ethically deficient in some way. Like I said before, this makes your line of thinking more in line with theocratic dogma than any feminism that I'm aware of, and its leading to you making sweeping negative and dehumanizing pronouncements against a huge group of people (actually the majority of the human race). I understand and sympathize with your passion for a cause you feel is just and right, and that is admirable, but you should not let your zeal blind you to your own flaws and limitations. Be careful staring too long into the abyss.


android654 said:


> I'm not sure who told you sex and dating were meant to be fair, but you're wrong. Relationships by their very nature discriminate against all kinds of people all the time. Nothing about sex or relationships was ever meant to be fair and to think everyone who comes along deserves a fair shake is a very odd concept to hold.





Diphenhydramine said:


> When you make this a matter of "human rights" you are essentially stating: *Everyone ought to be forced to think in a certain mentality. *Perhaps you could further say:* Everyone ought to be forced to choose their sexual partners by this mentality. *It's bizarre that you use the terminology of human rights, since this is directly in contradiction to virtually every author that has written about human rights, about every charter signed on human rights and to just about how everybody else thinks about them -- I accept that this may nonetheless be your view, but it wouldn't be correct to talk about 'human rights.'


Man, I disagree with you guys a lot but when you're right you're right. I completely agree with both of these points and they probably summarize my thoughts on this thread better than the rambling abomination I wrote above.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@snail
your post essentially 
- furthers the stereotype that demisexuals look down on non-demisexuals " Ideally, it would be possible for a person to actually feel attracted to qualities that matter rather than treating life like a beauty pageant in which the highest levels of respect are reserved for pretty/handsome people"
- simultaneously plays the victim AND judges people who hold different preferences than you. attempting to turn a preference into a civil rights issue

....my opinion of you has sunk considerably. this is just pathetic


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I don't have a problem with snail pushing her views on other people. She is right that we don't allow unacceptable behaviour to go without comment: it's only on everything else is she completely wrong. 



snail said:


> It is a human rights issue because looks-based discrimination affects plenty of areas of life besides just relationships, and causes some people to be unjustly penalized for things they can't (or shouldn't have to) control. I would rather live in a world where people are valued for their character instead of for some feature of their bodies, such as skin color, sex, etc. That was what the leaders of the civil rights movement wanted, too. I just want to take it to the greatest extreme I can, because it is a good thing.


 Nope, it's still not a human rights issue for the reasons I outlined: because it directly breaks the principal human right, i.e. *the ability to generate free thoughts. *Even in the most horrendous of despotisms humanity has ever created for itself, people have still been able to think what they like, so long as they don't tell anyone. It's my right as a human being to be free to think and to speak according to my conscience and to make free decisions in my personal sexual life. 

Besideswhich, 'the civil rights movement' isn't the whole human rights movement in history. Human rights are supposed to be universal, that is they apply to every human. I'm not surprised that you didn't choose a movement with bigger and more global relevance though, such as the Indian independence movement or the Abolitionists campaign in Britain. The relevance of what I've just said should be immediately obvious.

However, you're still wrong, because that isn't what the civil rights movement wanted. They didn't want to re-define human rights to mean you can control people's minds to tell them what they can and can't find attractive. They weren't marching so that people decided to change their minds about racism and looked at them differently. They protested and campaigned because they wanted to disestablish institutions and frameworks that had created real and serious barriers that had kept a whole race of people in a subservient position. The fact of the matter is that you don't really have any understanding of what 'human rights' is -- which is quite plain from this post and from many others you've posted -- and you think it is basically the completely redefinition of human interaction to be "nobody can think anything bad about me, ever." 

Human rights are the inalienable and fundamental rights that everyone from the haughtiest of American vegans to the poorest and most disenfranchised of Burmese peasants are entitled to because of their nature as human beings. If you think that one of these rights is for people to look at you exactly the same as they look at the next person, you just simply don't understand the topic, either willfully or out of ignorance. You could go somewhere outside of the borders of the wealthiest country in human history and have a look at just how fatuous your whole position sounds, but I don't think that is likely at all.

And yes, I am 'attacking you.' Why? I'm not offended by what you say because you have called me shallow -- which I refuse to accept as a pejorative -- but because you have shown the most total ignorance about the structure of the world and the nature of disenfranchisement and disempowerment. For somebody who makes the claim that they're interested in these things, you have completely failed the charge.



Shahada said:


> Your entire existence, like the existence of any middle-class person in a developed country, is unfair and inequitable. I don't say that to be mean, the same is true of my own existence.


 In defence of many well-intentioned westerners, it's not really possible for them to understand this concept, or why this is the case and neither is it possible for them to really understand what is going on. Even as a person who has been exposed to this sort of affair, I find it spectacularly hard to imagine. That doesn't of course mean we shouldn't try, but it's very difficult for people to find that basic empathy, and frankly, the whole "give £1 a month to X charity and you'll absolve your sins" has not really worked towards this.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> In defence of many well-intentioned westerners, it's not really possible for them to understand this concept, or why this is the case and neither is it possible for them to really understand what is going on. Even as a person who has been exposed to this sort of affair, I find it spectacularly hard to imagine. That doesn't of course mean we shouldn't try, but it's very difficult for people to find that basic empathy, and frankly, the whole "give £1 a month to X charity and you'll absolve your sins" has not really worked towards this.


Sure, I agree and really meant it more as a side point and a "let he who is without sin..." type thing. I'm also more likely to take issue with ignorance on this front when its someone who is ostensibly concerned with social justice.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

snail said:


> Thank you for acknowledging that people are not objects, like food or paintings, which are used to satisfy the senses. I am glad that you recognize that we fall into a different category and exist for something other than someone else's consumption.
> 
> 1. A person can arouse a demisexual for reasons that have nothing to do with aesthetics.* If you cannot be aroused at all, you are likely an asexual.* You say you have been aroused before. What was it about your one partner that aroused you? I think the definition of demisexuality needs to be further clarified, so that instead of just describing the state of experiencing no primary sexual attraction, it also describes the state of experiencing no primary sexual revulsion. The two are closely linked.
> 
> ...



1. Sexual attraction does not necessarily lead to arousal. Plenty of variables can prevent someone from becoming aroused, even if the person of their sexual desires is nude right in front of them.

2. Would you consider it ethical to be a bigot? Enough said.

3. No, I am not. I am not a public attraction, welcoming all to come in. You're being quite a hypocrite, honestly. "We must accept people for who they are." followed by "Everybody is a shallow, unrighteous turd." According to you, NOBODY should have a partner. I don't select partners bases solely on what they look like, and personality is VERY important to me, but like I said, I'm not going to date someone who I don't like just because... For no real reason. Beauty is fleeting, and I wouldn't leave a partner just because something happened to that beauty, but I'm also not going to just throw myself at anybody who shares similar values to mine. 

It's honestly sad that you bring down the name of demisexuals AND feminists with your.. well... unethical treatment of pretty much everybody. I suggest you take a biology class. There are reasons for which we find some people good looking and others not so much. Even our immune system plays a role, and we send this information via pheromones. You can't see, smell, taste them... but they're there, and they play a HUGE role on whether we find someone attractive. You are not only attacking the whole human race, but you are attacking nature, and even God if there is one.


----------



## Faiora (May 23, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> Has anybody else noticed how, initially, a lot of people have a negative reaction to the Demisexual orientation?


Okay, I'll bite (although I'm under the impression that I'll be seen as trolling, despite that this is an expression of my sincere and straightforward opinion -_-;; ). I have a negative reaction to this despite that I had to look it up (Wikipedia, for the record, redirects you to the "asexual" category). 

Just like when doing personality tests, or deciding what gender you identify with, or really anything else, the term "sexuality" (as a categorizing term) is used to sort people into groups, at least in a loose sense. Categorizing people is natural, because it gives us an idea of how to frame our mind when interacting with someone. For example, with MBTI types, I will now try to recognize when someone is a "Feeling" type if an argument occurs, to identify if that is causing the issue. Then I am able to calm down a little because I realise their priorities are different from mine (it doesn't usually change my mind, but it keeps me from losing respect for the person). If I'm dealing with a man rather than a woman, I frame my mind differently because there are some thought patterns that are more common in men than women and vice versa. 

Now, given that categorizing is natural: Sexuality is typically categorized as "straight" and "gay." Because the two options were never framed as preferences so much as absolutes, "bisexual" has become more of a trend, as people discover attractions to both genders. In my personal opinion, this is irrelevant, because I see "straight" and "gay" as innate preferences (just like our MBTI types) which are more strong in some people than others. I could see myself having sex with both men and women, but I tend to prefer men. If you have a preference, there's not necessarily a reason to "swing both ways," and as such, I refer to myself as straight, and voila! no fuss. 

People have varying degrees of sexual drives as well, but I consider this a separate issue. You might like men, or women, or both, but that's not really related to how much you like or want sex. If your sexual drive is nil/nada/zero, then you have no way of knowing what your sexual preference is, because you just aren't interested to begin with. But that doesn't mean you wouldn't have a preference, if you were more interested in sex. 

I had a housemate once (big house, 7 people) who, in his first month there, was making jokes about penises and was making his thoughts clear about men. I asked something along the lines of "oh, you're gay?" (clearly okay with me, and I saw it as more of a conversation starter). He started telling me how he likes women as well, and the obvious reaction is "Oh, then you're bi." This is apparently not the right thing to say to someone who identifies as "pansexual." He got really upset and started ranting about "why everyone wants to put people in a box." My thought: Cry for attention. 

I understand that the pansexual mindset, at its best, would be to include those who have undergone gender transformations, or perhaps cross-dressers, or others that don't fit into the "typical" spectrum of tastes - but I find this idea offensive to some of the people it's trying to include. If someone has undergone a gender transformation, because they really feel they identify better that way, wouldn't they prefer to be considered their new gender? I'd like to think if I became a male, that straight females or gay males would consider me fair game 

Anyway. What I'm getting at is this: *Why complicate it unnecessarily?* If you consider yourself demisexual, or asexual, or less sexual in some other sense, then why not use a separate scale for the way you prefer your relationship to be, rather than mixing it up with which people you prefer a relationship with?


----------



## Faiora (May 23, 2010)

snail said:


> I'm glad you are willing to approach this topic in a thoughtful manner rather than just attacking me for my views, like the others seem to be doing. Than you for showing respect. It is appreciated.
> 
> I admit that I have trouble empathizing with people who embrace unfairness, so if expressing my views made them defensive, I just wasn't thinking about how it would feel to be in their position, being criticized for something they had always taken for granted as being okay. I suppose it must be similar to how I felt when I first learned that my vegetarianism was still harmful to animals because buying dairy products still involved practicing speciesism, condoning slavery, and indirectly supporting the veal industry. I might have been a bit defensive at first, because I thought I was already doing the best I could. Being told my effortss weren't good enough hurt. Eventually I became a vegan, but it took longer than it should have because I wanted to see myself as a good person even when I was still doing something evil.
> 
> ...


Wow.

This is a really self-righteous, passive-aggressive post. 
I appreciate your writing style and thought progression, and it had me sucked in for a minute... but you basically just alienated at least 60% of readers by telling them exactly what you think of people who eat meat, people who have prejudices they are trying to get over, and people who respond to your criticisms. 

I have some prejudices based on stereotypes, and my logic is thus: Some cultural groups have different values systems than my own, so it stands to reason that many, if not most people in those groups would act differently than me in specific ways. 
This does not make it okay for me to assume that someone I meet from that cultural group will act that way, so even if someone seems very stereotypically ____, I will make a point not to assume that about that person. Why should it be wrong to identify stereotypes (which in my mind is a logical sorting process), when you have no intention of treating people any worse for it?

As an example, I will use an invented stereotype: people with blue eyes like to drop coffee on people's shoes (ridiculous enough?). So, if I met someone with blue eyes, and I had previously met a lot of people with blue eyes who DID like to drop coffee on people's shoes, then I might be concerned about it happening again. But then I would remind myself that not EVERY person with blue eyes drops coffee on people's shoes, and it's really not fair of me to judge before they go around dropping coffee on my shoes. I'd have to actually know they dropped coffee on someone's shoes before I considered it might be an issue with that person - which I would respond to on the basis of their individual habit of dropping coffee on people's shoes, NOT bringing up my stereotypes on the matter to them. After all, it might end up being a fluke incident, and how terrible would that be, if I'd gone and called them a blue-eyed-coffee-dropper for it? 

I myself have some very specific racial prejudices, and I don't think it's fair to say that I'm a bad person for having them. I make every effort to be kind to everyone, and not to judge individuals by their race. My prejudices are based on actual interactions I have had with people (not on things I've been told, or just picked up on), and it's difficult (if not impossible) to get rid of these thoughts. The best I can do is note when someone goes against my stereotypes, and incorporate these positives into the groupings in my head. 

As for veganism... I'll give you an attack-response on that one since you had such obviously hateful feelings about omnivores: 
Really? You think the rest of us are evil?
Do you think owls are evil? How about lions? 
Did you know that ants "farm" aphids (even cutting off their wings so they can't leave the "farm" area), to "milk" them for their secretions? How do you feel about that?
The very notion that anything we do as humans could be unnatural, is unnatural. 

I, like you, have trouble with people who embrace unfairness. But, I think it's important to consider every person's rights in a given situation. I have a right not to be attacked for my way of thinking, and so does everyone else here. Just because you haven't personally said to someone "you're evil because you eat meat" doesn't mean you haven't made an attack.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Faiora said:


> Stuff
> 
> Anyway. What I'm getting at is this: *Why complicate it unnecessarily?* If you consider yourself demisexual, or asexual, or less sexual in some other sense, then why not use a separate scale for the way you prefer your relationship to be, rather than mixing it up with which people you prefer a relationship with?


What if I told you I personally find owning the demisexual label more simple than not? 

I grew up as a teenager with absolutely no sexual interest in boys and an aesthetic attraction to women. I lived and breathed in a culture which told me 'your hormones are raging around your body, you will go absolutely boy crazy' and yet...

And yet I felt abolutely nothing. Nada. 

I really did think I was gay once. I really did think I was just exceptionally picky. I really did think I was some shallow, vain individual. I knew something was wrong with me, some reason I was different, and yet there was never a word, an explanation for it. 

And now there is one :wink: 

Also, you appear to have a slight (accidental) misconception about the demi label - 



> If you consider yourself demisexual, or asexual, or less sexual in some other sense, then why not use a separate scale for the way you prefer your relationship to be, rather than mixing it up with which people you prefer a relationship with?


Using the demi label *does not* exclude someone from still using the gay/straight/bi labels. For example, I associate as a hetero demisexual - this means I could either use the demi or hetero label when describing my sexuality, and both would be true. Or I could use both. To-may-toes, to-mah-toes. 

I know when you only use the gay/straight scale adding demi into the mix can make it seem more complex - but trust me, for a lot of people, sexuality is a very complex thing; a simpler box is useless if you have to force yourself to fit into it.


----------



## Faiora (May 23, 2010)

Falling Leaves said:


> What if I told you I personally find owning the demisexual label more simple than not?
> 
> I grew up as a teenager with absolutely no sexual interest in boys and an aesthetic attraction to women. I lived and breathed in a culture which told me 'your hormones are raging around your body, you will go absolutely boy crazy' and yet...
> 
> ...


I make big boxes, with room for everyone  They're made of cardboard and fun to play in. Like, astronauts and stuff, not PLAY play.

Regarding the "demi" prefix not precluding the ****/hetero/bi labels: I learn something new every day. Thanks! ...but it doesn't really help me understand why the "demi" label is helpful to begin with. How does it keep you from fitting in the usual "hetero" box? Doesn't it still only describe your sex drive? Or am I wrong on that too?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Faiora said:


> I make big boxes, with room for everyone  They're made of cardboard and fun to play in. Like, astronauts and stuff, not PLAY play.
> 
> Regarding the "demi" prefix not precluding the ****/hetero/bi labels: I learn something new every day. Thanks! ...but it doesn't really help me understand why the "demi" label is helpful to begin with. How does it keep you from fitting in the usual "hetero" box? Doesn't it still only describe your sex drive? Or am I wrong on that too?


It describes in which context you experience sexual attraction. Nothing to do with libido.


----------



## chip (Oct 12, 2011)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> It describes in which context you experience sexual attraction. Nothing to do with libido.


I was thinking....wouldn't being turned on by a connection, or emotions affect the libido at all?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

chip said:


> I was thinking....wouldn't being turned on by a connection, or emotions affect the libido at all?


Having an emotional connection to someone can, and usually does, produce an increase in libido. Libido is nothing but a cocktail of hormones your body produce in an attempt to get us to get busy making babies.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Faiora said:


> Doesn't it still only describe your sex drive? Or am I wrong on that too?


No, I'm a demisexual with a very high sex drive. BUT, the only thing that turns me on is my SO, and that has more to do with the emotional ambiance of the situation than his appearances (but his appearances are an added bonus to me.)


----------

