what does Demi- sexual mean?

Probably because straight people don't spend a lot of time thinking about their sexuality, whereas any queer person is going to have spent a lot of time questioning and analyzing their feelings and attractions.

 

In a world were we didn't have a "default" and people could just be attracted to who they wanted without question then your right the long list of labels wouldn't exist. But unfortunately that world doesn't exist. So labels help try to grasp the closest thing that describes you so that others can understand and "file" you I guess as this, that, or the other. It also helps people to become proud of being different and not feel ostracized from those who are "normal". If that makes sense.

 

Well first off, I know I'll get flamed for saying so, but I'm not a fan of labels in general.

But the problem with the sort of obscure labels that sometimes get labeled "special snowflake" (Note to flamers: I'm not calling them special snowflake, I'm saying that many people do describe them as such) is that, well, they fail the basic rules of language.

The whole point of words in communication is that both interlocutors in a conversation will understand what your words mean based on a shared common comprehension of the language.

As Mr Scratch pointed out on the first page, if you tell someone you are demisexual, for 99.9% of the population, you're going to have to end up explaining in detail what the hell you mean by calling yourself "demisexual" anyway. Thus the word utterly fails in communicating anything of value to your interlocutor. You're still going to have to give a long drawn-out explanation of what your sexuality consists of.

It's like the bisexual vs. pansexual fight. Most people, whether they be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or pansexual, seem to have accepted that the difference between bisexual and pansexual is that bisexual people are only attracted to binary gendered people (that being the literal definition of bisexual, meaning 2, from the same root as binary). So if you tell someone you are bisexual, the overwhelming majority of people are going to think that's what you mean. You will have to give additional explanation to assert that you are, in fact, also attracted to non-binary people.

Individuals don't have the power to invent words, or to define or redefine words. Words have meaning because there is a shared common understanding of what a word means. Labels are supposed to make it easy to sum up in one word what your overall identity is without having to give a detailed explanation. If I tell someone I am "gay", they know what I mean, I don't have to give any further detailed explanation that I am sexually and emotionally attracted exclusively to members of the same sex.

If you use a word nobody has heard of, then it has pretty much no linguistic value, the label won't work to sum up anything, and you will end up having to explain what you mean anyway.

With particular regard to "demisexual", as Chip has noted, there isn't really any research or such to have established there being such a thing. Of course you're entirely free to identify yourself as such, but its existence as a real thing simply hasn't been established in any credible field.

But it isn't a form of sexual orientation, it is a matter of personal preference, feeling the need to form an emotional bond before being capable of sexual attraction.

I could say I'm a "blondosexual" because I'm only attracted to blondes, or a "videogameosexual" because I'm only able to fall romantically in love with people who play video games with me. I'm against labels in general, but things can really get taken too far when we start inventing labels for any and every personal preference and feeling we might have.

These are not the same things as sexual orientations, biologically inherent characteristics that have been verified as existing by science, and the meanings of their labels (straight, gay, bi, etc.) are pretty much universally understood and you can use them in a conversation and have your full meaning conveyed by the use of the word.

Again words have meaning because there is a shared common understanding of the word amongst human beings. An individual doesn't have the power to force a word upon the English language, nor the power to force a definition upon a word in the English language. Words are used to communicate with other people, if other people don't acknowledge a word or comprehend its meaning, then it's simply not part of the language.

Now with all that being said, before the flamers get their cannons ready, I certainly do not disapprove of people choosing to identify themselves personally with any label they choose. In fact I don't even consider myself to be in any sort of place to be judging the sort of labels people choose for themselves. An identity is a deeply personal thing, and you should feel free to identify yourself in any way you choose. If you choose to label yourself "demisexual", then by all means it is your right, and your right only, to label yourself as such.

I'm just providing a bit of a reality check about how such labels would function in the real world, though I know I've probably poked a ######'s nest with this post.

 

Then we may as well rid of plenty of 'official' labels as well.

It's not that difficult to explain/understand really. It's also more a secondary term, as we've gone over. It's not something you need a neon sign about but could bring up should the need arise.

I can bet you the vast majority of the population hasn't heard of/does not know what the heck a pansexual is or most of the non-bi/trinary terms. This is also, if you ask me, something that is a lot easier to grasp by the average person.

Who's to say it couldn't pick up steam at some point? New terms are created all the time. Language is always changing.

The key word there is in bold: hasn't. I'm not going to threaten for it to be looked into, but it's open to be looked into further nonetheless.

It's not simply a 'preference' for (a lot of) us; That's like saying being gay is a 'preference' for men, when we know the reality is that it is (for the most part) exclusive. Just as a gay guy can go out and will himself to sleep with a woman, we can will ourselves to sleep with someone we aren't sexually attracted to; it's just going to be a lackluster experience.

On that note, i'll leave that because I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't identify as such to grasp it well.

We've already gone over the problem of comparing this to physical characteristics and it's pretty odd to compare it to videogames, which aren't even a part of us(though someone can identify themselves as such all they want to).

This is more closely related to asexuality anyways and, unlike your examples, is open to anybody of the gender related to our respective sexualities that we can make the other(emotional/romantic) connections with; it's not (really) limiting in itself.

Finally something we can really agree on it seems.

 

C P, you said a lot of what I was going to say, so no need to repeat. However, going off of Rakkaus, just because it not a common label, it is not an invalid on. I am will continue to identity as such. Sure 9 times out of 10 I am asked what it means, but that is not a bad things, I actually appreciate the questions. If people care enough to ask, then they care enough to learn and to be open to the idea. Also. once I explain what it means the next time they meet someone who also identifies as demisexual or asexual, they have a frame of reference. They will not be so confused, and they will be able to an amazing ally to that person, because they already know what it means. They will not be so confused from the beginning. This will also be a good thing for the person who identifies as demisexual or asexual because there will be someone in their life that understands. There will be someone who cares, and they will not have to feel like they are alone and that there is no one around who cares about them.

 

But this isn't a religion thread. People choose do believe in a religion or not. I did not choose to be Demi. Point, blank ,and simple. I do not care if it is a non-recognized label to some. But of those of us who I identify a it, it is a very true label. In addition, just because it is a non-recognized term, does not mean that it will always be a non-recognized term. Things change science grows.

I cannot tell you the number of times that I have heard on here, that sexuality is fluid. If that is the case why can't romantic attractions be considered the same way? Why is it such a big deal? Why can't people who identity as demi, be allowed to be happy with it? I understand that it confusing, by why can't we learn to accept it? Majority of the GSM is accepted, but Demisexuality is singled out for being "non-recognized".

I was talking about this with someone earlier, who also identifies as Demi, and this what I said

I understand that we are in such a hypersexualized world and meeting someone who is Demi is confusing, because we are in between the sexual and asexaul, but we are not that strange I promise you that. We occasionally people and we like cake. And on that note I leaving this here, because I have to get ready for church, and the Superbowl party tonight.

 

Unlike religion, however, this is something that can be looked into.

While you're always free to disagree on whatever, and that should itself should be respected, it's one thing to disagree on something that we can neither prove nor disprove, at least in the present(religion), and something that can be and makes sense(as in fits) if people care to look pass it being 'unofficial'.

It is invalidating, by the way, making it seem akin to us being in our own little world(in the way others have put it rather than a simple disagreement I mean; with the whole un/official argument. the same can be said for religious discussions here).

While I'm siding with phoenix' post above, this may just have to be something to agree to disagree on, for now.

 

What I've figured out is that everybody's sexuality and gender is unique. Humans by nature are pattern seekers; what make sense to them.
I'm only sexually attracted to women, but romantically and sexually attracted to men.
That's the box I'm currently residing in, but could change tomorrow and that is okay

 

Demi sexual is a rare form of orientation in which the person is obsessed with Demi Lovato

 

And what if I said I was a "videogameosexual", because I genuinely feel in my heart that I am incapable of falling romantically and sexually in love with someone unless he plays video games with me. Will you tell me that is an invalid label? Are you going to tell me I don't have the right to identify myself in such a way because that's how I genuinely feel in my heart? Do I have the right to thus force society to accept that label, and be offended if people choose not to recognize it as a valid identity?

"Demisexual" is a matter of personal preference, as has been noted repeatedly there is no scientific evidence backing up the idea that it is some biologically inherent characteristic.

I personally greatly prefer (and in fact pretty much exclusively seek out) sexual relationships only with those with whom I have formed some sort of emotional bond. I don't think that is some special unique identity, I think it is a matter of personal preference. Just like how I might prefer blonds over brunettes, or skinny guys over muscular guys. I greatly prefer genuine long-term relationships over quick loveless sex hookups.

You're perfectly within your rights to invent any personal label you wish to choose to identify yourself as. I would never dispute your right to do so.

But as I said, you don't have the power to force a word upon the English language, nor do you have the power to define or redefine a word in the English language. Language is an organic thing, words develop, meanings develop, because words and meanings naturally spread among the population. Attempting to force a new word into the language (like "demisexual") or force a new definition into the language (like saying" bisexual" includes being capable of attraction to non-binary genders) just doesn't work. My educational background is in linguistics, language is kinda my thing...and languages have to develop organically and naturally, not by one individual creating a label and a meaning and expecting the rest of society to accept it and know what it means.

 

As long as people are being respectful of my viewpoint, and not calling me a special snowflake, then I'm fine with differing viewpoints. It's when people start to insult my identity that it really irks me. That's why I was annoyed at the beginning of this thread.

I know that many of these words are not known for the general population, which is why I have a simplified version of my label. (This was especially true whey I was still identifying as pangender.) So, just because people do label themselves with these terms does not mean that they come out to everybody as specifically as that label. As I said earlier in this thread, to avoid the reactions that are in this thread, I come out as queer. It's annoying to have to do that, but I understand that many see not having sexual attractions as a "problem". In the end, it's not my place to force my viewpoint on you, just as it is not your place to force your viewpoint on me.

 

I realize this wasn't directed at me, but...

I'd say that I think that's a little silly, but that'd be about the extent of my feelings on it.

I prefer partners who share similar interests to me -- my ideal partner would enjoy reading, writing, gaming, swimming, have a passion for music, a passion for discussion and philosophy, would want to see the sea and visit different countries, would like taking in the occasional stand up comedy or musical performance and making regular excursions to the cinema and the theatre -- but I don't feel the need to devise labels to quantify those things as a part of my identity.

I think at some point, we have to draw the line on labeling ourselves.

 

This is totally me then!

 

Here's to wishing that things/ideas/in this case labels doing absolutely nothing to harm a person would be grounds enough to leave it alone...

 

I have to say this is the most creative response ever

 

Pretty much sums up how I feel. I feel like the excessive labels are over the top, as if some people need to come up with a new name for every specific feeling they have. Looking at the definition of "demisexual" I would meet that criteria, but then again so do alot of people. I wouldn't consider that a sexual orientation though. Sexual orientation really just describes the gender someone is attracted to.

 

My thoughts exactly...

 

I don’t want to show my stupid, but I will. - Factual Wriley

"Demisexual" sure has an interesting history...
To make me stop making Demi Lovato and DemiDevimon jokes, though, the name needs to go.