# Can a person technically be demisexual, but attracted to only one sex?



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Ock said:


> Yes I would, but I really doubt I'd go through with doing her. I may fantasize, but deep down I don't think I could feel comfortable making it reality.


Then you're not demi which isn't a bad thing since being demi can be a pain in the ass.


----------



## Amenochu (Mar 2, 2021)

I think, asexual/demisexual spectrum comes after the person's general attraction to others. So If someone is romantically attracted to males/females/non-binary or any other gender or every gender, then if they are asexual they won't feel sexual attraction to none of the genders and if demisexual they will be particularly sexually attracted to the people they have the closest bond with. I hope I explained well enough to understand xD


----------



## Samael1 (Mar 4, 2021)

Electra said:


> You can't box people in


Says it all.

I really don't get the current social hangup on sexual identity. 
I could put my dick in a toaster and I'd still be me. A crispy, electrocuted version of me, but still me. I wouldn't need some silly made-up-word or internet subculture to validate it.
We were finally reaching true equality and equilibrium for a couple decades and then everything went Sisyphus and rolled down the other side of the hill and everybody's putting themselves into conflicting groups again. 






You are not your genitals, you are not your skin color, you are not your birthplace, you are not whatever you are attracted to at the moment, and you are not your fucking khakis. 

This is what happens when a generation is raised by television instead of their parents. No ego identity, so constantly grasping for a broader generalization to shoehorn themselves into. What ever happened to people identifying themselves with "I" or "Me" and the contents there of being subordinate to the persona? 
Just be yourself and love yourself for yourself. It's not something anybody can give to you, and if you own it with pride, it's not something anybody can take away.


----------



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

Samael1 said:


> This is what happens when a generation is raised by television instead of their parents.


I wasn't. They didn't have television where I started out [goes to birthplace].

And I like the labels. Over-application can happen with anything, but it can't take away from _appropriate_ relevance. Being able to say 'I'm demi' and not go through the same tiresome wheel-justifying process to 'explain' why I am or aren't a certain way... What's not to like?



> if you own it with pride,


That's where the 'labelling' came from, silly.


----------



## Samael1 (Mar 4, 2021)

lilysocks said:


> That's where the 'labelling' came from, silly.


This is where we differ. 
I think the label should be subordinate to the self, not vice versa. Somebody can actually, believe it or not, be proud of themselves _without_ a pre-defined label. 
Much of this mentality came to me when I idenfied myself as "metrosexual" to a a friend, and she said it was a stupid moniker because a hetero man is a hetero man and whether or not he conforms to stereotypes is irrelevant. She was bi, bi the way. But she was right. We overthink this shit. Look for words to describe and define us, as though any single human being can be lumped into a group... that _robs_ individuality. 
In the past, a self-description would have been eloquent and profound, describing a human being to the core of all their patterns and quirks and eccentricities.... now it's "Ravenpuff ENFP Demisexual LBGTQEIEIOANDSOMETIMESY" 
Hell, my own sexuality is atypical, as I'm an incorrigible flirt and sex addict, yet I only consummate with those who meet certain psychological criteria. But I don't need some "group" or subset or pre-defined social descriptor to justify this. Easier to explain myself as myself than fit myself into a box made by others and shared by others, because those others are not me, and similarities do not actually make them 1:1 commensurate.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

lilysocks said:


> Being able to say 'I'm demi' and not go through the same tiresome wheel-justifying process to 'explain' why I am or aren't a certain way.


Exactly. It gets very old trying to explain the same damn things over and over, and sometimes a label seems to validate to others the way someone is. Its like how I was recently happy and relieved to discover I have something called an "Auditory Processing Disorder" because I have felt kinda sensitive about people not understanding or validating the way I am, and I got so annoyed by having to explain everything over and over. That shit gets really old.

I wish I had a label for what I am spiritually with my beliefs so I could simply tell people "I am _"blank"_.", but my beliefs are too individual, and they probably always will be.


----------



## Samael1 (Mar 4, 2021)

Ock said:


> I have something called an "Auditory Processing Disorder" because I have felt kinda sensitive about people not understanding or validating the way I am, and I got so annoyed by having to explain everything over and over. That shit gets really old.


That's a disorder. A diagnosis, not a preference. And I certainly hope you don't define yourself by something you consider a shortcoming. It is a trait you have, not vice versa; own it, don't let it own you.



> I wish I had a label for what I am spiritually with my beliefs so I could simply tell people "I am _"blank"_.", but my beliefs are too individual, and they probably always will be.


is it that important for other people to shoehorn you into a box by which to define and judge you? Just tell them your beliefs are too personal to describe, or make up your own word for it if it's so important for it to have a label. The fact they're personal and can't be labeled means you actually take them seriously. Hardly something to feel bad about.


I just found out there are people who don't like slice of life and require their fiction to have a solid throughline of progressive plot development, with well developed characters. We call ourselves hergenblaatenflartz. I was so happy to learn I am not alone in having certain preferences.
Now when people ask what kind of books/movies I like, I can say, "I'm a hergenblaatenflartz," and thank god, because actually discussing my preferences like an individual would be embarrassing.

Oh, but rewatching scrubs made me realize that despite disliking medical drama, I highly enjoy it when humorous, but only if the humour is written in a very specific style. I now have to pull my (body) hair out and chew my nails to the bone until somebody tells me what label the particular preference makes me. I am so existentially confused right now. If there isn't a group of people with my exact tastes who have defined it definitively, I just don't think I can keep watching the show.


----------



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

Samael1 said:


> This is where we differ.
> I think the label should be subordinate to the self, not vice versa.


okay; but to me this is a conversation. there's no reason (that i know of) to assume those taking part in it all base their whole identity on _nothing but_ the parameters being discussed in the course of the conversation. it's just a topic that's interesting. sexuality and preference are both aspects of self. i don't see them as mutually exclusive concepts.

and i don't see a 'label' as depriving anybody of their self. that's individual. some people will embrace something shallow and trite, and never think deeply about it again. those people were probably not going to explore or introspect anyway. on the other hand, others will do the opposite and a 'label' can be the start of an exploration.

also on the other hand: look at how huffy and flouncy you get just from (i assume) being in the neighbourhood when a topic comes up in which people do want to get deep.



> Somebody can actually, believe it or not, be proud of themselves _without_ a pre-defined label.


why would you think that i don't believe it? again, they're not mutually exclusive. 



> In the past, a self-description would have been eloquent and profound,


idk how old you are but i'm coming up on 56, and i don't believe i saw much in my pre-internet tv-free life that leads me to think that your premise is true. 

what's more, ime any time someone IS 'eloquent and profound', guess what happens? other people who resonate coalesce around that voice. you start to get the 'me too's. next thing you know, it's six months to six years later and you've got another 'label' to be annoyed by, i guess. but it's belittling of you to assume that a 'label' cancels out the individual personhood of the person behind the label. 

it's just the way this stuff works. people recognize resonance. they gravitate. 




> now it's "Ravenpuff ENFP Demisexual LBGTQEIEIOANDSOMETIMESY"


well, the harry potter thing is ridiculous. but that's for other reasons.



> similarities do not actually make them 1:1 commensurate.


of course not. but similarities spark conversations. which is what you object to, i guess? you don't think the conversations are substantive or meaningful.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Samael1 said:


> I can say, "I'm a hergenblaatenflartz," and thank god, because actually discussing my preferences like an individual would be embarrassing.


I think you missed my point. For me its not about how individual I am with or without labels. Its about certain things about me being continually misunderstood and invalidated, and me feeling annoyed and flustered because I have to repeatedly and thoroughly explain the same shit to people over and over. But sometimes if there's a label to something, I can just present the label, and people are a little more likely to think the way I am is valid because it has a label. Plus I really hate repeating myself in general, and just a 1-3 word label is a lot less trouble to repeat, and I'm not always fully mentally equipped to articulate all my thoughts yet _again_ .


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

To make a better contribution to the thread, I have wondered this same thing about demisexuality and I was confused as well.

This thread helped me to understand it better--so I really appreciate the question posed here. Some of the answers were very illuminating.

I've wondered at times about demisexuality since I don't really understand what people mean, often times, when they talk about bodies being sexually attractive. Like generally when I see a man, no matter what he looks like, I usually don't think "wow I would like to have sex with him." If he's a stranger, the idea of seeing him naked is usually shocking and disturbing because I just think of him as a threat, I guess.

I used to have literal nightmares about having an affair on my partner and waking up in bed with a stranger (who was sometimes also my partner--so there was probably a lot more to the dream)...but basically, I just tend not to find the idea of sex with a guy just because his body is supposed to be "hot" as anything stimulating. I don't really even understand how people can decide which bodies are supposed to be stimulating except that they are muscular usually and probably don't have a lot of hair on the chest.

I'm not sure how much of that is sexuality and I somehow feel it might not be at all. But when people describe "sexual attraction" a lot of times I just don't get it. And perhaps that's also because people just appreciate different stuff? Perhaps when some people are talking about physical things they are talking about "if there was another foundation." But sometimes not.

When I actually get sexually attracted to someone it feels a lot more like a personality thing, but I think that's also normal--a lot of times when people are sexually attracted to people they want to focus on their personalities. Some people don't seem to be like this--like some people would be fine just having sex with someone because they are sexually attractive, and then just not caring about their personality or a relationship with them? But I also think that there are a lot of people who aren't demisexual who probably don't relate to that--who have a harder time separating physical attraction to attraction to other qualities of a personality or an ideal relationship.

I decided I'm not demisexual though because I do get crushes on people I don't know that well and also fictional characters played by actors, who I obviously couldn't have any emotional intimacy with except in my imagination. And I don't think demisexuality is supposed to include imagined intimacy, though I am kind of curious about how that works as well.

So anyway--good question, there were some really good answers in here.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I found this post, especially, to be illuminating. It's helpful to understand.

I also wonder if there could be a spectrum of demisexuality--it is said it's on the asexual spectrum I think though.



Rainbow Iris said:


> My understanding is that demisexuality is at a point on the asexual to allosexual spectrum, but can still exist anywhere within the range of sexualities on the heterosexual to pansexual spectrum, and also anywhere on the monogamous to polyamorous spectrum.
> 
> All it means is that a person doesn't experience primary sexual attraction (the immediate attraction to bodies), while still experiencing secondary sexual attraction (based on an emotional connection to the person), and since a person's gender is part of that person's identity, part of who they are, and is about a lot more than just what kind of body the person occupies, it makes sense that someone might feel more emotionally connected to a specific gender in the way that one needs to in order to form such sexual feelings, regardless of the physical form the other person takes.
> 
> ...


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Just so everyone knows, I removed a derail and threadbanned a member from this thread. I apologize if your helpful contribution was removed as part of the derail.

It's not always that easy figuring out what to remove and what to leave--so some good posts were removed because they wouldn't have made sense outside the context of the derail.


----------



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> I do get crushes on people I don't know that well and also fictional characters played by actors, who I obviously couldn't have any emotional intimacy with except in my imagination.


i don't think this is any different from someone who gets the fictional hots for someone they're never going to meet in the (hur hur hur) flesh, except in the question of what triggers it. interestingly, one of my own more-enduring crushes was on stephen fry for the specific reason that back in the 1990's he provided my second-ever exposure to the idea that opting out of sex was even an option. 

definitely relate to the i-don't-get-it thing. the only time i've ever been a body watcher was when i was lifting, and everybody i saw got a bit of automatic assessment in the light of all the things lifting taught me about bodies and how they work. i don't think anybody would say that was sexual . i seriously wanted to learn, and i was kind of thinking about strength and kinetics all the damned time. so i was always tuned into people i could (even only potentially) learn something from. and honestly, when you're into it watching somebody do a lift well is just satisfying. so i'd watch some random guy putting the sugar in his coffee from across the coffee shop and based more on the way that he moved than his aesthetics i would sometimes go 'ooooooh', and often go 'nah'.

i guess i think of 'demi' as identifying the scope, and 'hetero'/'[wtf filter starred out ****]'/'bi' as the nature of someone's interests. so yeah; a sliding scale seems like it fits well, to me.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

WickerDeer said:


> Just so everyone knows, I removed a derail and threadbanned a member from this thread. I apologize if your helpful contribution was removed as part of the derail.
> 
> It's not always that easy figuring out what to remove and what to leave--so some good posts were removed because they wouldn't have made sense outside the context of the derail.


I was curious what he was going to say next because I was mystified by how I somehow ended up ruffling his feathers, and I was like "Wait, what? Did I say something wrong?" Oh well, I guess I'll never know.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Ock said:


> I was curious what he was going to say next because I was mystified by how I somehow ended up ruffling his feathers, and I was like "Wait, what? Did I say something wrong?" Oh well, I guess I'll never know.


He might have replied to that--I'll go look and see if it's there and pull it up.

It's a pain cleaning up derails...I suppose I could have left the whole thing but I felt bad about the thread being derailed and my responsibility in it for responding. I'm not always great with fixing that--here, I found what I think is his response for what it's worth:



> @Ock, I say again, I'm sorry it came to this. I was trying to give a fresh perspective and encourage not getting caught up in the kind of groupthink that happens every century (and leads to countless innocent deaths every time). Despite how people have twisted my intentent, it was never about judging your sexuality, but my sincere (and I hope you at least believe that much) absolutely sincere advocation that you not define yourself by it. As somebody said to me once, "you be you." It doesn't matter how toxic and self righteous others are, you have every right to whatever traits set you apart, even if they can't be defined and labeled. Study chaos theory and you'll realize that butterflies have more power than they're granted. Butterflies are beautiful, and important. Be one. And any monster who wants to slap a label on you and put you in a box and derail your threads into personal gender politics about their own identity issues should die in fire.
> Even if nobody supports or believes in you... I do. So make me proud. Be yourself and kick this world's ass, no matter how many weaker people try to hold you back.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

The definition I found says nothing about sex nor gender. It just says that a demisexual will only feel sexual attraction after an emotional bond is established.

This means that the only time a demisexual is guaranteed to not have a sexual attraction to anybody is when they have not formed an emotional bond with anybody.

But having an emotional bond with somebody does not guarantee sexual attraction at all. Hence there could be a case where a demisexual could never be attracted to anybody and it follows that they could also never be attracted to anybody of one gender or the other or both or (all of you prefer gender as a spectrum.)



Electra said:


> You can't box people in


Of course you can though because for example if you were to never experience sexual attraction before engaging in an emotional bond then you would fit the bill for a demisexual.

Just like I could fit the bill for being a biped because of my use of only two legs.

Having labels and categories isn’t impossible.

Some people don’t merely use labels as mere descriptors though. They choose to build their personal identity around such things. There is an ugly amount of emotional investment put into such things.

Most people are bipedal, but they would never cling to that label. Why?


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> The definition I found says nothing about sex nor gender. It just says that a demisexual will only feel sexual attraction after an emotional bond is established.
> 
> This means that the only time a demisexual is guaranteed to not have a sexual attraction to anybody is when they have not formed an emotional bond with anybody.
> 
> ...


I would label my self as a demi but I can still feel attracted to men (I happen to be straight so for me; men is what I personally I look for , but that is individual offcourse.) because of looks or repulsed because of looks, but it isn't really strong compered to when we esteblish an emotional connection. For example I don't go on one night stands because I find it a waste of time, I don't get anything from it emotionally and its the emotional connection that matters for me. Maybe its because I -ahem- well, I kinda get _high_ on being in love and feeling loved. I get an intence irrestistable kick out of it. I think the musical and book industry is very aware of it, playing love songs on the radio so much and selling romantic novel (not purely sexual). It is the most addictive thing in the world that I know of, and the absolutely hardest to quit. Not sure if it feels the same for men. I kinda blame the oxytocin-estrogen-vasopressin, dopamin, testosterone and serotonin balance.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

This was originally a response to your post @lilysocks--but I feel bad formatting it like that b/c I go off and ramble and it's not actually very responsive. : / But it's an interesting topic!

Yeah--I got a crush on Nathaniel Hawthorne once which is confusing on so many levels b/c he's kind of an asshole and yet I guess I just felt his writing of Hester was really interesting, as was his grappling with his family history of puritanism. I am pretty sure I wouldn't have actually got along with him--maybe we would have had some kind of emotional connection if we both deal with inner conflicts or something, but inner conflict is kind of a lame foundation for any kind of relationship.

I mean...I really have no idea. Maybe it's just interesting as a human, how people can hold a lot of contradictory ideas and try to sort through their impulses. I mean...it does seem like he has some deeper feelings and questions about the world, even if he was kind of a sexist and also probably pretty traditional and religious.

I like how this video has an unsolved mysteries soundtrack. lol





It doesn't really make sense--but that's probably typical of attraction.

I also notice bodies--I have done a lot of figure drawing and I've drawn a lot of live models in the nude (both men and women) and so I do have an aesthetic appreciation for the human form. I guess I do find some aspects of the masculine form attractive--like the differences--the stubby fingers and the larger bone structure that is typical--men tend to have much more angular bodies as well, as they don't really collect cellulite as efficiently as women due to not having to carry pregnancies or breast feed imo. The body hair. Of course there are a lot of different aspects--but these are pretty typical for both men and women.

I just don't really understand when someone sees like a chisled torso and they are like "oh wow that is so hot." It's like--okay--he's got muscles. Big deal.

I usually think if I saw this guy shirtless in a private place I would be scared of him and want to avoid him because he could be a threat. That's the extent of my emotional response usually, when looking at a stranger I know nothing about. Maybe I think "that could be a good resource for anatomy drawing." It's just not very interesting to me.

I really liked drawing the male dancer that would pose in figure drawing--he danced in Michael Jackson's thriller and was probably twenty five years older than me, but I also appreciated his aesthetic form as an extension of his art--he was an ex dancer and the relationship between a dancer's body and their creative expression is so distinct. So I really enjoyed having some of that insight--it didn't lead to sexual attraction but rather to an appreciation of his humanity, since I often think of how figure drawing is sort of objectifying in essence (I am taking this person's body and form and using it to express something for myself).

But when I tried to ask myself who I might be attracted to physically, in a room of strangers...who I would feel most comfortable to be near physically or anything, it's usually a woman even though I'm not attracted to women that way. But I think that I am just not threatened by them so that's a much easier body to associate with sexual attraction because I don't associate it with danger. It takes a long time to get comfortable with a man's body--I have to trust them and sometimes that never fully happens. And if I mistrust them again, the sexual attraction will also disappear.

But I can sort of relate to what you said about a man putting sugar in his coffee across the room being possibly attractive--and perhaps for me it would also be that it's a safe distance, it's a safe action...it's not anything that disturbs me.

Perhaps men are usually not as threatened by the idea of the nude female body, so for them seeing it just evokes positive feelings. But perhaps for some women, seeing a nude male body that you don't know doesn't trigger the same reaction, whereas seeing a fully clothed man putting sugar in his coffee might be more attractive b/c of the feeling of safety of just observing someone who isn't trying to get anything from you.

I can't really relate to it except that maybe being in a safe position, away from harm, as an observer, and using the imagination, she might feel safer. Idk--I think if I looked out the window and saw a bunch of men bathing...I probably would want to go and be mad that I wasn't a man b/c going in the water is fun. I don't know if I would engage in the same sort of sexual fantasy Whitman is describing here. But I guess I just wonder how gender roles impact how attraction manifests for some people--not that demisexuals are like that or that I am necessarily like that or any other women.



*Song of Myself, XI*
Walt Whitman - 1819-1892

Twenty-eight young men bathe by the shore,
Twenty-eight young men and all so friendly;
Twenty-eight years of womanly life and all so lonesome.

She owns the fine house by the rise of the bank,
She hides handsome and richly drest aft the blinds of the window.

Which of the young men does she like the best?
Ah the homeliest of them is beautiful to her.

Where are you off to, lady? for I see you,
You splash in the water there, yet stay stock still in your room.

Dancing and laughing along the beach came the twenty-ninth bather,
The rest did not see her, but she saw them and loved them.

The beards of the young men glisten'd with wet, it ran from their long hair,
Little streams pass'd over their bodies.

An unseen hand also pass'd over their bodies,
It descended trembling from their temples and ribs.

The young men float on their backs, their white bellies bulge to the sun, they do not ask who seizes fast to them,
They do not know who puffs and declines with the pendant and bending arch,
They do not think whom they souse with spray.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Electra said:


> I would label my self as a demi but I can still feel attracted to men (I happen to be straight so for me; men is what I personally I look for , but that is individual offcourse.) because of looks or repulsed because of looks, but it isn't really strong compered to when we esteblish an emotional connection. For example I don't go on one night stands because I find it a waste of time, I don't get anything from it emotionally and its the emotional connection that matters for me. Maybe its because I -ahem- well, I kinda get _high_ on being in love and feeling loved. I get an intence irrestistable kick out of it. I think the musical and book industry is very aware of it, playing love songs on the radio so much and selling romantic novel (not purely sexual). It is the most addictive thing in the world that I know of, and the absolutely hardest to quit. Not sure if it feels the same for men. I kinda blame the oxytocin-estrogen-vasopressin, dopamin, testosterone and serotonin balance.


I’m demisexual and attracted to no sexes!


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I’m demisexual and attracted to no sexes!


How is that possible??
Now that I think of it I have a thing for dark eyebrows.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Electra said:


> I would label my self as a demi but I can still feel attracted to men (I happen to be straight so for me; men is what I personally I look for , but that is individual offcourse.) because of looks or repulsed because of looks, but it isn't really strong compered to when we esteblish an emotional connection. For example I don't go on one night stands because I find it a waste of time, I don't get anything from it emotionally and its the emotional connection that matters for me. Maybe its because I -ahem- well, I kinda get _high_ on being in love and feeling loved. I get an intence irrestistable kick out of it. I think the musical and book industry is very aware of it, playing love songs on the radio so much and selling romantic novel (not purely sexual). It is the most addictive thing in the world that I know of, and the absolutely hardest to quit. Not sure if it feels the same for men. I kinda blame the oxytocin-estrogen-vasopressin, dopamin, testosterone and serotonin balance.


I also find one-night stands a waste of time--it isn't even pleasant, at least compared to being in a relationship. I relate to getting high off love--that's a great description. It's intense. For me, I wouldn't call it love, myself, though.

I read an article once that the early stages of love or erotic attraction--that it affects the serotonin and so makes people a little more obsessive. And I've wondered about people who maybe have OCD or ADD or conditions like that, and whether it makes them super OCD. 

But I also like the feeling of having a strong focus--like a hyperfocus that comes with obsession, I think (I'm using the word "obsession" really loosely here--like I consider doing art sort of obsessive--since you are just staring at something for so long and focusing on tiny things...it's similar to obsession to me). 

I think this song describes it well too:





It's good to channel the energy into good projects and stuff--personal development, I think.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

WickerDeer said:


> I also find one-night stands a waste of time--it isn't even pleasant, at least compared to being in a relationship. I relate to getting high off love--that's a great description. It's intense. For me, I wouldn't call it love, myself, though.
> 
> I read an article once that the early stages of love or erotic attraction--that it affects the serotonin and so makes people a little more obsessive. And I've wondered about people who maybe have OCD or ADD or conditions like that, and whether it makes them super OCD.
> 
> ...


I have ADHD and because I am error prone and forgetfull, stray of topic etc. I now as an adult kinda obsess about getting things right regardless. I didn't when I was younger, mind you. I tend to get severe ocd like symptoms when I am in love or get a crush. I can get totally ocd on them.


----------



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> Yeah--I got a crush on Nathaniel Hawthorne once


heh. ishmael. kermit the frog. out and proud about it.



> I just don't really understand when someone sees like a chisled torso and they are like "oh wow that is so hot." It's like--okay--he's got muscles. Big deal.


completely agree.



> But I can sort of relate to what you said about a man putting sugar in his coffee across the room being possibly attractive


i wasn't clear; i could watch someone do that and there isn't any 'attraction' in it. it's very abstract, i think similar to the way you might look at the way someone moves and think about what you would draw/how you would make a drawing 'from' them.

for instance: a lot of upper-body work in lifting is all about how you stabilize your shoulderblades. shoulderblade stabilization was one of my personal epiphany things (had an impingment for a while there from not doing it). releasing my levator scapulae and letting my shoulders go natural was like a personal project of mine, all the time.

so being sensitized, i could go ooooh just from watching somebody stir their coffee becuase movement could tell me so much about whether they had the nice relaxed shoulders i was so consciously trying to maintain for myself.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Electra said:


> How is that possible??
> Now that I think of it I have a thing for dark eyebrows.


It is possible, and if I have no emotional bonds it is not only possible but guaranteed.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

lilysocks said:


> heh. ishmael. kermit the frog. out and proud about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah--Kermit the Frog was my first memory of the concept of sex. I remember I had a dream that I had to change Kermit's diaper (he was a baby) and he had a vagina--so I told my mom and she explained that "boys don't have vaginas" which was news to me--it was the first time I realized that other people didn't all have the same body as me. Anyway...sorry, that probably is like the weirdest image you wouldn't want to have of Kermit. lol But he was sort of the first idea of gender/sex to me.

I appreciate physical arts so much more as I learn about skills like that. I've never had formal weightlifting training, but I tried taking ballet once as an adult (as opposed to having been one of those girls that took ballet since they were children) and it was completely impossible. Like all the actual ballerinas who had been taking classes from childhood were like delicate gazelles leaping and I was like a moose with one broken leg trying to do the same thing. Making an absolute fool out of myself as well as the seeing and listening to the dancers that modeled for figure drawing class gave me a completely new appreciation for that kind of physical activity and how much attention and knowledge (as well as practice) that it entails. I have a lot more admiration for those sports and physical arts now.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

I'm demisexual in the sense that I have no mental or emotional desire to have sex with any woman I don't have an emotional bond with, but my "body" sometimes tells me something else. But an emotional bond I think still greatly increases my bodily desire. But the mental and emotional has always had the upper hand over the body, and I doubt that will ever change. Especially with my increasing age and decreasing "other" stuff.


----------

