what does Demi- sexual mean?

I'm partial to her role on Striptease >.>

 

If you somehow feel in your heart that that fits you, then by all means identify yourself as such. There's a huge difference between a hobby and something that is (for the most part) built into us(emotions) though.

I personally feel you are grasping at straws here for the sake of it/intentionally though, as I'm sure you could come up with something much more comparable than a hobby.

It is not simply a preference for (a lot of) us.

This right here makes your video game analogy appear to be even more off. Video games aren't even a part of us and have only came about in recent history. The ability to form an emotional bond has been around since forever and is a part of us(emotions), so makes this much more relevant anyway(not taking your videogamesexuality away, even if I find it as ridiculous, if not more so, as you make our claim to be; just making a point).

You are missing the point here.

The difference between you and us is that it isn't something we are necessarily actively seeking out. You may choose to only have a sexual relationship with someone you form an emotional bond with, but you can still experience sexual attraction before that bond is formed, correct? With us, that sexual attraction isn't unlocked until we form that bond; we simply hit it off with someone and, should that bond form otherwise, then the sexual attraction comes. It isn't simply, in itself, an either/or situation when it comes to attraction in general.

Hmm...

Who are we forcing anything on? We've more so been explaining how we feel it fits and is more relevant than a lot of the other comparisons being made to it.

If anybody here has been acting as a dictator of language, it's been you, honestly.


@That One Guy So you have no sexual attraction beforehand? If so, yeah, you would fit the criteria. We aren't choosing who we are sexually attracted to, we just attempt to make connections otherwise and the sexual attraction comes later/is secondary.

By the way, where is anyone saying that it is an orientation all on its own? It's a secondary term that can be applied to hetero/homo/bi/pansexuality.


@Chip How about we just extend that to anyone named Demi?

 

So... after reading through the posts. Demi and Asexual are really just 'special snowflaking' labels for people with psychological issues and body disorders, because the research isn't there yet and it's uncommon?

I'm gonna have to disagree. :lol:

I guess we could all say "it's complicated" instead, but that sounds... just wrong and dismissive.

:dead:

 

^ Thank you.

Them being considered complicated to understand by those who aren't in our shoes is a more fair statement. Sexual attraction is (so) overrated.

 

Dismissive works for me. But that's the point, use the explanation that works for you.

 

I understand the annoyance people have with any kind of label, but I've tried the slow explanations, and the in-depth discussions, pouring my heart out to convey who I am as a whole. Most of the time it only results in being considered weird, emo, or on some form of medication.

It's frustrating not to feel like a freak sometimes.

It works for me too. I just wish it didn't have to.

 

Nah, you're just missing the point completely.

Defining every personal preference as being a distinct sexual orientation or identity can quickly lead to absurdism and over-the-top labels.

If I'm only capable of attraction to blond people, does that make me a blondosexual?

Ultimately sexual orientation is determined only by which sex(es) you are attracted to, not by any other characteristic. I think it is dangerous and harmful to the LGBTQ cause to begin identifying every personal preference as an "orientation", blurring the lines between personal preference and the genuine, biologically based sexual orientations of being gay, straight, or bisexual.

Yea again you're missing the point. The video game thing was just an example to illustrate the absurdity of trying to label every preference as a distinct orientation or identity.

You can say it's not a preference, but again there is no credible research to support the idea that there is some distinct biological orientation that makes one only capable of having sexual attraction to someone with whom you have an emotional bond.

A lot of people, myself included, find it difficult to sexually desire someone unless we have a strong emotional bond with that person. But that doesn't make it some distinct orientation.

Again, I could say I'm biologically wired to only be attracted to blonds, but to decide to label myself as blondosexual would be ridiculous.

These are personal preferences, distinct from actual orientations and identities.

Well you're entitled to feel the way you feel, but as Chip has noted, there isn't any credible field that recognizes such a mindset as actually existing.

The idea that physical attraction cannot be established without being "unlocked" by a pre-existing emotional bond just runs contrary to everything we understand about human sexuality.

Of course having an emotional bond can make someone sexually attractive to me who wasn't attractive to me before, but that's just part of how sexual attraction works, it isn't all physical. An average-looking guy with a super-sweet personality will be more attractive to me than an uber-hot guy with a nasty personality. Sexual attraction again is based on more than just physical traits.

So the idea of some special label needing to exist for people who basically have the same human experience of sexuality as everyone else just seems unnecessary and really not very useful.

Everyone has varying degrees to which emotional bonds matter in terms of sexuality. Some people are just horny and looking for random hookups to get their rocks off. But many people feel the need to have an emotional connection before being willing to engage in a sexual relationship with someone. It's not some rare unique distinct orientation.

Nah you're just shooting the messenger. All I've done is provide a reality check on how language works. You're entitled to identify yourself any way you choose, but since the whole point of language is to communicate with other human beings, you can't demand or expect other human beings to acknowledge how you choose to identify yourselves and understand what you mean when you're using a label for an identity that's not acknowledged as even existing by any branch of sexology or psychology.

"Demisexual" basically just means you're on the same sexuality spectrum as everyone else, for some people emotional bonds are important, for others they are not.

 

The thing is,there are other human beings that do know the meaning of demisexual. These labels are used within the ace community all the time. Just because they are not mainstream does not mean that they are not useful in certain situations. I use a ton of jargon at my workplace that not many people would understand here, but that does not make that jargon pointless when I am at work.

Also, I agree with the point about you being a dictator of language. That's your opinion, it may be based off of facts, but you cannot present that as absolute truth. (Unless you have a time machine, than that changes things )

As was stated earlier, demisexual is used usually as a modifier to a sexuality. It's not so much used as a sexuality itself.

 

Isn't that the truth?

With some people, there is just no reasoning with them if it isn't instantly backed up by science. They have a hard time understanding something out of their little bubble and so pretty much make our feelings out as some 'fairytale from our little world'.

Thanks, Brad. It feels good to have others like yourself around. Where the hell is everyone pulling this idea that we are adding it in as a completely different orientation anyways?


@Rakkaus I'm not missing the point because it's beginning to be tiresome trying to reason with someone who obviously sees things almost entirely differently. This really is feeling similar to the religious arguments now; It's what is scientifically backed up(currently) vs what is not scientifically backed up(currently), although is more relevant than the video game point, but eh. Mainstream vs not mainstream...

You aren't someone who identifies as demisexual so I wouldn't expect you to get what I'm trying to get across and I'm not going through your feelings on the matter so am not going to fully grasp what you are getting across.

This is where we can really just agree to disagree. The situation is more complicated than current backup will allow to be understood by those completely behind that sort of thing.ost) totally socially conditioned. There's a difference between someone being physically attractive and sexually attractive anyways.

What's just as dangerous to the LGBT cause is those like yourself who I feel are not getting the difference between what is and isn't 'preference' and go about claiming that everything outside of what we currently have backed up as just all snowflaking pretty much.

You're doing just as much alienating/damage as you claim us to be doing.

---------- Post added 3rd Feb 2014 at 12:29 AM ----------

^ Didn't get to fix that in time. That third part of Rakkaus I meant to take out the bit after the second sentence; clearly jumbled so ya know.

 

Anyway I'm done arguing over this.

While I fully respect the right of each and every individual to identify themselves however they please...it is my opinion that labels like "demisexual" are dangerous, they invite opponents of the LGBTQ community to point to people labeling themselves- based on a matter of preference- with obscure silly labels like "demisexual" in order to diminish the biological realities of true sexual orientations like "gay" and "bisexual". (And again, there is no credible finding in the fields of sexology or psychology conforming the existence of a "demisexual" orientation as anything other than a personal preference).

Every single person on planet earth has a varying degree of need for emotional bond before sexual attraction is possible. There is no need for some special label for people who place a much higher value on the need for emotional bond than others.

Again, just like I don't need some special "blondosexual" label to assert that I am only capable of attraction to blonds. These are all our own unique personal preferences, even if they are pre-programmed into our brains, not orientations.

But people choosing to label themselves as "demisexual" do tangible harm to other people, such as myself, who identify with genuine sexual orientations like gay. It diminishes the value of my orientation, and the orientation of all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, whose orientations are genuinely biologically programmed and not matters of personal preference. That is why I feel fully entitled to comment on it, because using such labels just doesn't affect you, it affects all of us.

Hence just as you are entitled you identify as you wish, I am entitled to consider such titles to be silly, unnecessary, and harmful. Beyond that, I suppose we shall just have to agree to disagree, since we've obviously not getting anywhere.

 

@CHIP They used to say being gay was a "phase". The reason that these terms have not made it into vernacular yet is because people are finally figuring out what/who they are. This does not erase who they are, but benefits them because I believe we should all feel included. This is what used to and still is happening to people who identify as bisexual, for example. We are not always excepted, not only by the straight community, but the gay community as well. I would think that someone who identified as "gay" would understand the need for labels. But I guess anyone can be close-minded. And by the way, who are you to say that asexuality isn't a category. That is exactly, again, what many heteros said about homosexuals not so long ago. Come on, and keep up with the times.

 

It's not your job do define "genuine" sexual orientations. It's not your job to tell myself or others what they can or can not identify as. If my goal is to hurt the LGBT community by identifying as asexual, then what am I doing here?

The fact is that the asexual community is out there, and we have a voice. We are usually standing side by side with the LGBT community. And what do we get for it? Alienation, hatred and straight up identity shaming. I'm sorry that you cannot see the harm that your posts have caused. I know that you would be straight up pissed if I typed the things that you have said in this thread about you.

We are not getting anywhere because you are being overbearing with your opinion. You are trying to tell others how to act and think. Which is not cool in any situation.

Just as you are entitled to see my identity as silly, unnecessary and harmful, I am entitled to see your posts in this thread in the same regard.

 

@theBiword We aren't even making an entirely new orientation here(at least with demisexuality). It's mainly a modifier, as Brad pointed out. I'm not sure how many times we have to point that out. It also isn't something that just popped up yesterday and it is used more commonly than some here realize.

Apparently we are just here stirring up trouble and, if something doesn't have 'official' credit right this moment, it is all in our imagination; new findings are not allowed through figuring out more about ourselves.

It's slightly amusing though(even if tiresome) I'll admit, how that works out. I wouldn't be here trying to explain myself if I wanted to cause this so called harm. *smh*

 

Are even attempting to read the posts that C P and I are making, or are arguing with us because you want to feel all high and mighty about yourself? You keep talking about what you find attractive and saying that we are using over the top labels. How the hell is identifying as Demisexual over the top? It is an add on identification. I am a Heteroromantic Demisexual, or is that too much absurdism for you?

At least when someone is Blondosexual, they get to experience attraction. Imagine If you would, rarely getting to experience attraction. Not understanding what at attraction is, because you cannot experience it because you need to have an emotional component there. Everyone around you can be attracted to someone who is the hottest person in the world and you feel nothing. Now imagine trying to find someone to date. We live in a world where people find, who they want to date because of how attractive they are, and you screwed, because you cannot experience that. There is no finding someone at the bar or meeting someone in the grocery store. Flirting is out of the question too. Everything that we as a society use for finding a spouse is completely out of the window. You feel hopeless, lonely, and different. Then you meet someone who feels the same way, and then you meet someone else again and so forth. No longer feeling different, you come to realize that there is a term for how you feel, and you finally start to accept it.

Then out of the woodwork comes someone who decides that you do not deserve to be happy, you are just being a “special snowflake” and are using non-recognized terms. Then tells you that, being what come to find out, as Demisexual is just a preference. Say that you can change how you feel, because it is just a fucking preference. That is what you are doing, to me and every other single Demisexual persons out there, including the ones here on EC, which is supposed to be safe space. We are supposed to feel same here, and happy here. But No you call us dangerous to the LGBTQ cause. We have just as much fucking right to be a part of LGBTQIA cause, because the A stands for asexual. However, according to you we are dangerous because we are not simply Gay, straight, or bisexual. Oh by the by the way, Pansexual, or is that not a real identity either.

Exactly what we are trying to say, now why can’t you accept that sexual attraction for Demisexuals starts with emotions not appearance. It not that difficult of a concept to understand.

Oh and your how it is not “recognized” thing seriously needs to stop. How recently ago was it when Homosexuality, Transsexuality were finally removed from the DSM? Yet it was accept previously accepted as a legitimate orientation. You are just grasping for straws and it is seriously annoying. If you do not like me that fine, I do not really care. But you can at least be respectful of us as a community and not try to commit erasure. Because newsflash we are not going away. We are here and we are going to stay, so you do like it you are just going to have to learn to deal.

 

So I think CHIP has stumbled onto the true Asexual Agenda. See, many years ago we gathered in a conference room, all 1% of us, and we hatched a devious plot:

Take to tumbler and our blogs and inundate the queer community with very specific language to describe every orientation scenario humanly possible. Then sit back and watch the chaos unfold as people's minds exploded at the sheer diversity of it all. We've been under the radar, you see, this whole time, invisible. Ostracized by your gender binaries and your gay/straight dichotomy. So we conspired to tear the whole thing down. Now you are so fed up with labels you will abandon the framework all together. Oh, who knows why we did this. Maybe it was all of our attachment disorders. Perhaps it was the gaping void left in our pointless lives by all the sex we aren't having. Only sexologists, psychologists, and CHIP will be able to sift through the remnants of our reckless disregard for the status quo to make any sense of it all, with their powerful intellects. Special snowflake? I think you mean label-blizzard of impending doom. :badgrin:

 

Here allow me to quote this AGAIN to demonstrate your hypocrisy,
"In 1952, the APA listed homosexuality in the DSM as a sociopathic personality disturbance. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals, a large-scale 1962 study of homosexuality, was used to justify inclusion of the disorder as a supposed pathological hidden fear of the opposite sex caused by traumatic parent–child relationships. This view was widely influential in the medical profession.[18] In 1956, however, the psychologist Evelyn Hooker performed a study that compared the happiness and well-adjusted nature of self-identified homosexual men with heterosexual men and found no difference.[19] Her study stunned the medical community and made her a hero to many gay men and lesbians,[20] but homosexuality remained in the DSM until May 1974.[21]"

Now if you could be so kind as to answer the following questions:
1. Were people gay before science acknowledged it wasn't a disorder?
2. If so, did they have the gay disorder before 1974, but after it was taken out of the DSM were they actually legitimately gay then?
3. Was it ethically right for society to demand that science validate homosexuality as a "legitimate" sexuality before accepting it?
4. What harm do you think might come of the in-group demanding that minority orientations be justified by science before being accepted?
5. Do you now see that recognition or lack thereof by the scientific community does not change the reality of people's identities?

I must admit, that I am shocked that this forum tolerates such blatant erasure, and by an admin no less! Empty closets...the place where you can go to be told by an admin that your identity is just you struggling to feel unique and that you have an attachment disorder and that with enough therapy you'll be able to see your orientation is really just a mental problem. You suppose I can pray away the "A" too? Wow. I am sure if I search hard enough I will be able to find a policy violation in there somewhere, CHIP. You're on the wrong side of this one pal.

 

Actually, it's not. The sections on both female sexual interest/arousal disorder and male hypoactive sexual desire disorder specify that diagnosis is only given when the person experiences significant distress due to their lack of interest, and the DSM explicitly states that diagnosis is not given when the person identifies as asexual. You know what else is given the same treatment? Fetishes. Non-harmful fetishes are included by the DSM as disorders when they cause the person in question distress.