Obviously, I am obsessed with sex and the politics of sex. I spend large chunks of my day staring at arguments about sex, kink, and gender. Equally immoderate chunks of my night are spent writing about those things. Sometimes, I even have sex. I think it’s serious business. But I have a dark, secret heart hiding under my patriarchy-smashin’ words and thoughts. For reasons I don’t understand and can’t explain, I’m very seriously disposed to long-term, committed monogamy. Recently, and even more depressingly, that monogamy has been with hetereosexual cis men. I am the worst and most boring sexual revolutionary.
Thankfully, even this identification is something that can still get you into fights as long as you call it “demisexuality.” Haven’t heard of it? It’s the orientation that’s sweeping the nation! Or, rather, the social justice blogosphere, Tumblrverse and other non-locations. It’s sexy! It’s exciting! It’s controversial and people are angry about it!
Demisexuals are those who “do not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone,” and it is “more commonly seen in but by no means confined to romantic relationships.” This is the definition I’ve heard most often, and it’s the definition I’m going to use. In fact, it’s the definition I do use. I identify pretty strongly as demisexual which is where my problems begin.
Charles wrote a post about the internet giving us new words and identifications. That post is partially about me, because within the last year, I came across the term and immediately saw myself in it. I’d been trying to explain my experience of desire to Charles for months, and there it was, written in someone else’s hand. It was a revelation. I was finally able to actually succinctly explain who I am and what I feel. It’s important to me and it’s a term that makes my history and behavior make sense.
So, I care about demisexuality and want to defend it from detractors for myself and for other demisexuals, but also because I think the arguments being leveled against it are bad and wrong. So let’s look at some of those, shall we?
Demisexuality Is Fake
The common anti-demisexual argument is that demisexuality is not a real “thing,” is not a special or interesting enough to be worthy of distinction, or is just an attempt to “queer the straights.” This queering would allow heteros and normies access to the sweet, delicious queerness that is so coveted in feministy and social justice circles, despite those hets being unsexy, normative lamers.
This post from Thought Catalog does a pretty good job of phrasing these arguments if you’d like to read them from the horse’s mouth. I think they’re pretty wrongity-wrong.
McDonovan comments that “demisexual people are confused” about what “demisexual” means and use many conflicting definitions. Zie seems to suggest that demisexuality isn’t a thing worth talking about because it’s an identity that lacks a consistent definition. Ignoring the fact that terms like “genderfluid” don’t have consistent definitions almost on purpose, this is still a pretty vacuous argument. Because there sure do exist standard definitions of the word. And if people are using conflicting definitions it says nothing about the veracity of the identification and everything about the lifecycle of a term that is still under discussion. Also, this shouldn’t be news but sometimes people on the internet play fast and loose with their words. Maybe they’re confused, maybe they’re inarticulate, maybe they’re not actually demisexuals, maybe they’re part of a vast cabal that’s trying to discredit demisexuality. I don’t know and it doesn’t matter because none of that means there’s no such thing as a demisexual.
The next issue McDonovan finds with demisexuality is that “most of the population” fits the fairly accurate definition zie has managed to scrounge from the conflicting ones. This notion that demisexuality is broad enough that everyone fits betrays a serious misunderstanding about the kind of feelings demisexuality describes. There is, or can be, a difference between being sexually attracted to a person and actually wanting or being willing to have sex with them. You can say “I’m attracted to you but I wouldn’t actually want to have sex with you,” and demisexuality lives inside this distinction.
I think it’s likely that many, even most Americans would only have sex with people they feel emotionally connected to. I think that’s a fair assessment. But it isn’t a description of demisexuality. Demisexuality is about desire and arousal, not just sex and who you do it with. It’s not merely that I’m only interested in having sex with people that I love, it’s also that I feel a complete absence of desire or sexual feelings toward everyone else. Ever. What makes me demisexual is that absence. What makes me demisexual is that I’ve only ever been sexually attracted to three people in my whole life. My partner is sexually attracted to that many people during particularly sexy bus rides. And you can tell me that most of the population is like me, but I just don’t think you’re right.
And, luckily, I have evidence backing my belief. Namely, porn. If most of the population were demisexual, there would not be pornography, at least not like there is now. One of the reasons why I knew I was demisexual is that I have never been aroused, in the slightest, by pornography or erotica, even if the porn was high quality and/or of stuff I like. I can’t think of strangers sexually in a way that affects me. It just doesn’t work. But porn wouldn’t exist if people weren’t stimulated by images of strange people doing naked things. Not to mention the tremendous number of images of sex and sexuality in the media. If everyone were demisexual, sex wouldn’t sell. But it does. As such, not only is demisexuality an orientation, but it’s an orientation distinct from the way most people experience sex and desire.
But, let’s take a step back for a moment and let’s imagine that the confusion is true. Let’s imagine that the word “demisexual” really does mean “a person who experiences desire the same way as almost everyone in the world.” That doesn’t actually invalidate the word in any way. In fact, I argue that we’d still need and use it. We need it like we need “heterosexual” and “cisgendered.” We need words that precisely describe the norm just as much as we need precise descriptions of deviations from that norm. If we accept this, then claims of demisexuality are safe from labels of “queering the straights” or “special snowflaking.” Even in its most debased form, the word remains valid and a useful identification. Again, I do think that the word is more clear and specific than that debased definition, but the point is it’s never not useful.
Being Demisexual is Not Being LGBT
I’ve seen some folks get angry at notions that demisexuals might try to claim LGBT/queer identities for themselves, and even might invade and “invalidate” LGBT/queer spaces.
There are things that I agree with in this argument, and things that I don’t. I want to be careful. First of all, asexuals and people on the asexuality spectrum are literally not necessarily LGBT. You can be a straight (or heteroromantic) asexual. This isn’t particularly controversial. But I do think that LGBT organizations and movements and sex-pos organizations and movements should strive to better include asexuals and people on the asexuality spectrum. So, that means demisexuals should be included, too. This is doubly true because one can very easily be a demisexual queer. Like Your Humble Editor.
It’s also true that demisexuality has to do with how and when you desire, while being queer often has to do with who you desire. And those are two different things. And maybe sometimes two different things get to have two different spaces. Maybe queer spaces, depending on what they’re trying to accomplish, shouldn’t necessarily feel pressure to include heterosexual or heteroromantic demisexuals. I think that might actually be okay. What isn’t okay is the anger with which these demisexuals are excluded and the derision that accompanies it. Demisexuals also have few spaces of their own, which is unfortunate. But these are problems that can be solved. For now, though, I will merely state that the relationship between LGBT people and asexual spectrum people is one that’s fraught and could stand to be improved.
Demisexuals Are Not Oppressed
The last common complaint about demisexuals and demisexuality is that demisexuals claim that their sexuality is an axis of oppression. McDonovan’s post and this Womanist Musings post angrily, but pretty effectively, make this argument.
And, perhaps shockingly, I agree. I do not experience “demisexual oppression.” No one has ever reacted to it with hatred or disgust. In the four years I’ve been demisexual, I have not even had it get in the way of my finding fulfilling and happy sexual relationships. I’d be very interested to hear other demisexuals explain why they feel their sexuality causes them oppression, but I find it absent in my own life. The mistake demisexuality’s detractors make
is that they take wrong or mistaken claims of demisexual oppression and transform them into notions that demisexuality is itself somehow bad, stupid, useless, or fake.
The fact that demisexuals aren’t oppressed doesn’t mean demisexuality is uncomplicated, though. It’s strange, and sometimes actually difficult to be a demisexual in a more-sexual world. For example, I wonder what it’s like to be a demisexual searching for a partner. Does OkCupid even work for demisexuals? Will people think you’re leading them on, being a bitch, or a cocktease, or that your standards are just too high? I don’t know, but it seems like a tight spot to be in.
These difficulties multiply in feminist and sex positive spaces. I intend to talk about this in much greater detail later. For now, though, I’ll leave off with an example: demisexuality made it easy for me to slip into sex-negativity and slut-shaming. It took me a long time to understand that casual sex can be a morally okay and emotionally safe thing for people to do. Sex outside of a committed relationship sounds very unappealing and possibly dangerous to me. I had to learn that just because that sort of sex would probably be bad for me didn’t mean that it was bad for everyone who had it or that people having it were messed up. Even now, it can be hard for me to understand why, for example, my partner might be interested in fostering a sexual relationship with someone he likes, but who is emotionally distant. To me, it seems so awful and bad. I have to remind myself that he’s not like me, step back, and trust him.
Being demisexual amongst people whose sexuality is closer to normal can be tricky. It can be hard to figure out exactly what and where your differences are and how to deal with them when they arise. But what matters most is that those differences do exist. It’s not always easy to be demisexual, but it is a real way to be. Even if it’s not an axis of oppression, even if can be difficult to define, demisexuality remains legitimate, valid, and worthy of respect as an orientation and identity.
You can’t just make a new word and then shove it on everyone, that isn’t how the development of new words works,when someone tries to create a new word, at first people will be hesitant to take it, and will stand against it, this is normal and you should let it slide, you can not argue a word into existence.
this is part of the problem I have with all these so called ‘identities’ people just seem to make stuff up and then when we don’t believe what they say we’re branded as hateful.
Gin, thanks for your comment!
I think it very much can be how the development of new words work. Words like “kilobyte” and terms like “nihilism” were invented by people to explain things. They were coined. And then they were picked up and ended up being accepted terms. And if people argue that x is the term we should have for y, and enough other folks find that argument persuasive… Yeah. I think you can argue a word into use. Look at what I’ve done with this thread. There are a couple of people in it who hadn’t heard of “demisexuality” before and now either identify with it, or just believe it exists. So, it looks like I argued a word into their vocabularies.
The problem that words for identities have is that we’re only now in a position where we can actually openly describe “genderqueer,” “demisexual,” “polysexual,” and the like. And we kind of need words to describe these things so that we can effectively communicate about what we are and what we want. I understand how weird it feels to be presented with a massive list of new terms you have to use in order to communicate with people, but I ultimately think it’s a very good thing.
As for hate… Well, first of all, look at this thread. No one is calling anyone hateful. Second of all, what’s hateful is not a reluctance to use a word. It’s not a curmudgeonly linguistic perscriptivism. It’s not even a certain crabbiness about all of the new words you have to learn and remember. What treads much closer to hateful in my book is a refusal to believe people when they say “This is how I feel.” It’s the assumption that they’re making things up. It’s the decision to put the word “identities,” in scare quotes and to call them “so-called identities,” instead of merely “identities.” Can you see how people might be hurt and offended by that?
Reading this post, I’m strikingly reminded of this cartoon, on a most excellent strip:
http://xkcd.com/1095/
I’m honestly at a loss whether to admire or pity you (admittedly, you’ve asked for neither). It’s articles like this that remind me to take a step back and look at the big picture. You can indeed parse the world of the demisexual -and have – but whither the lesbian demisexual? What about bisexual demisexual men who can only generate arousal with an emotional attachment to a man? Bidemihomosexuals?
My point is, you’ve thought this through, and arrived at a lot of conclusions which I can’t call untrue. Why? I can’t escape the suspicion that, as you zoom in on the fractal edges of sexuality, you’re trying to find a way to make yourself unique. And that’s fair – but this is nothing that the world should care about. It’s way too esoteric and postgender to matter to anyone – no?
I’d rather support LGBTQ folks from over here on the straight side, and not worry too much about demisexuality.
I hate that cartoon. I’m always getting lumped in with the plastic straw “hobbyists,” when in fact that whole concept is just an attempt by the “professionals” to discredit the movement for complete equality. They refuse to accept that I am attracted to both swizzle sticks AND straws. “Just pick one already!” is what they say to me.
Hi there…thanks for at least making an effort not to be demeaning
i can see where you’re coming from, but the problem with your perspective is that you’re treating any attempt to have new words to describe sexuality as being part of an effort to address oppression. And that isn’t really true — because human gender, sexuality, and romance are very very complex, like how the specturm of colors is made of much more than red, yellow and blue. Therefore, having a word to talk about a facet of sexuality that exists but doesn’t usually lead people to encounter bigotry (although it can…I’m demisexual and can be attracted to both men and women for example, for example. Do you think fundamentalists are going to make a distinction before they yell at me? 
) is just about being able to communicate more clearly, not always about fighting oppression!
Since you linked a comic, I’ll link you a comic. My view of human sexuality is the one in the third row of this comic: http://www.viruscomix.com/page528.html It’s complex stuff! Like the rainbow. All we can do is TRY to describe it…that’s why so many words are popping up these days, because it’s hard to quantify straightforwardly. When I first began discussing LGBT issues on the internet after being an advocate IRL for a while, I was boggled to discover there was all this stuff other than heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender. Like, I didn’t understand why the word “pansexual” existed at all and why people didn’t just call themselves bi. For a couple days I guess I had a pretty snooty internal attitude about it, until I came to the conclusion I have above – that it’s not about “feeling special” it’s just about human feelings being complex, and well worth attributing extra terms to! And I still believe that. So people can coin whatever terms they feel they need, for the sake of facilitating communication. Lots of people would need multiple words to describe theirs, like the “joke” examples you gave, but I don’t think that’s a reason to make fun of them.
Going back to the color example, it’s like having a word for puce. A single shade of somewhat obtrusive green isn’t all that important maybe, but the fact that the word “puce” exists makes it convenient to discuss on those occasions when we may need to, or it’s the EXACT color you want for your wall/knitting wool/puce wedding cake.I’d like to think that if a word can exist for a silly shade of green, then it’s perfectly fine of me to expect a nice convenient word to exist for my particular flavor of libido!
It’s there to make it easier to talk about with other people, not to cry out about oppression olympics. I have met faaaaar more people saying “Why are you claiming to be an oppressed sexual minority?!” than I have demisexuals claiming to be one (have met none of those…), since people think that’s the only reason to coin a word – and it’s not!
Feast, I understand and appreciate your comment. Those fractal edges of sexuality absolutely exist. I’ve been staring into that abyss for months and there really is no end. I absolutely see where you’re coming from. I do think it’s important to the world, though, for three reasons:
1) It makes individuals happy. You don’t have to care about it, because you’re not demi, but knowing that demi exists is really important to me, and to many other demi folks. So, it’s important to the world, because it’s important to people in the world, yeah?
2) A lot of demisexual people are LGBT, too. Most of us don’t have gender preferences, so we do happen to fall under that umbrella. I’m definitely queer.
3) The proliferation of these terms is, in my opinion, pretty great. Each term helps us think about and interrogate sexuality, and I think that interrogation can be pretty important on a cultural level.
Otherwise, I just agree with pretty much everything the anon has said and really appreciate it. Thanks a lot, anon! I couldn’t have put it better myself, and I’ve always loved that comic.
By the way, Puce is pink, not green. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puce
According to Wiki: Puce is the French word for flea. The color is said to be the color of the bloodstains remaining on linen or bedsheets, even after being laundered, from a flea’s droppings or after a flea has been killed.
Your random factoid of the day. (I know, I always assumed Puce was green too!)
There are ways to identify your romantic attractions as a demisexual (also as an asexual). For example, I’m a Biromantic Demisexual. A “lesbian demisexual” would be a Homoromantic Demisexual. It’s basically the matter of taking your Bi-, Homo-, Hetero-, Pan-, or what have you, and tacking it onto the word romantic. These terms were originally to denote the romantic interests of asexuals, but as demisexuality falls into the asexual spectrum, they have been adopted into this too. There are also aromantics, but I won’t go there right now.
“Demisexual” sounds to me like a fetish for a particular style of bra. Or like a dark-haired divorcee with children who has a much younger male lover. (Pronounced “deMEEsexual.”). Good thing you explained it more fully. : – )
Labels of sexual categories are proliferating and subdividing, and I think that’s kind of a good thing. But, it means that you can’t really have much confidence that a new word will catch on, because there will probably be some refinement of it immediately afterwards. This also means that people need to approach words with a little sense of humor and not get too obsessive about linguistic perfection. All single-word labels for sexuality are problematic.
The fairest, most accurate thing, which is where we seem to be headed, is to treat one’s sexuality as an “essay answer” and not a “fill-in-the-blank answer.” Where the language of sexual orientation (and “orientation” is not the best word, either) is going is towards smaller and smaller subdivisions. “I think of myself as a ______, which to me means ….” And then statement would often prompt a conversation when the listener says, “I never liked that word ____, because to me it has a bad connotation. I actually prefer _____.” And before you know it, you’ve had a stimulating conversation about what you like and what they like.
Wellokaythen, I’ve actually written that shit out before. It was nearly a blog post. Charles convinced me not to.
But, yeah. Somewhere on my computer, there’s definitely a document that talks about how I identify as a cis-female femme, queer demisexual submissive masochist and what literally each of those terms means to me. I’m pretty happy about that, though. It’s important to talk about boundaries with partners. And I think it can be important to talk about what identities and labels mean, too. I think that can be super great.
1) lots of demisexuals, and indeed full-on asexuals will talk openly about their own porn consumption – often with the justification that it’s a compartmentalized visual stimulation without being attracted to that person. so that isn’t really proof of anything. in any case, the vast majority of porn is consumed by men, and most of these criticisms have come from women.
words like “heterosexual” and “cisgender” should be less understood as comfy self-aware identities than as positions of social dominance. i don’t want people to be invested in their heteroness or their cisness; these are constructs that need to be obliterated because their existence is dependent upon a social order built on the othering and violent hatred of people like me. i don’t think that’s a comparison that does the concept of demisexuality any favors.
2) it is actually controversial – many heteroromantics insist that they still aren’t “straight,” as if the distinction is in any way relevant from a material queer perspective. and straight/arom aces need to be a lot more thoughtful about their use of LGBT resources. like the LGBT student groups dealing with them all around the U.S. and beyond right now.
3) then social justice minded people should not really be obligated to devote nearly as much attention to it as has been expected of us in recent years, should we? essays might make a person feel empowered, but individualism is a dead end. material conditions can be described in fewer words so that we can focus on fighting to improve those conditions instead of standing around falling in love with our own uniqueness.
1) The porn thing is on me. I don’t know many demis. I don’t talk to a lot of ace-spectrum folks, so I didn’t actually know that so many asexuality spectrum folks did porn. I don’t, obviously. I don’t get it at all. A lot of folks in the comments have called me on my misinformation. I’ve been thinking about ways to change the article to reflect the fact that I’ve learned stuff since I wrote it. I haven’t yet, and that’s my fault.
First of all, I don’t think that an understanding and respect for one’s own privilege necessarily cancels out comfort in an identity. Folks are what they are. Second, I don’t think identities other than “cis” and “hetero” are any less constructed than those identities are. I also don’t particularly stand for their elimination. It seems to me that, even in my much hoped-for post-gender utopia there will still be many people with vaginas who embrace traditional femininity and/or the label “woman.” And many of those people will experience romantic and sexual attraction to people with penises who embrace traditional masculinity and/or the label “men.” In short, there will always be straight people. I see no reason to think that’s inescapable.
These points, however, are kind of moot. This piece is my best attempt at a 101 and GMP is, in a lot of ways, a space where 101s are necessary. Most of my readers are heterosexual men. Most of them don’t seem to be feminists. Some of them are even hostile to social justice and its related schools of thought. Cisness and heterosexuality, however, are things they identify with and will defend. That’s one of the reasons why this comparison is in there. It’s very basic. Deliberately. I’m doing my best to write to my core audience, even if I might rather my core audience be made up of people like you.
2) That’s a good point and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. I think it’s fair to assert that heteromantic asexuals don’t really fall under the LGBT umbrella. But I also don’t think that their orientation is normative and I respect that. As such, I definitely hope that we can find spaces where LGBT people and asexuality-spectrum people can find spaces to co-exist and represent their collective non-normativity.
3) I’m not demanding attention from the social justice-minded. What I want from folks who read this article is to believe that demisexuality is a real identity and respect it. That’s actually it. I haven’t particularly seen demi folks demand attention from social justice folks. Personally, I’m not in love with my own uniqueness. If I were, it’s not demisexuality isn’t the aspect of my identity I’d talk about. Likewise, I haven’t seen many demi folks who seemed to me to just be in love with uniqueness. I’ve seen a lot of us be in love with the term “demi,” but I think that’s mostly because we’re thrilled to be able to explain ourselves and communicate effectively about who we are and how we feel.
I identified strongly as asexual until after I became close friends with my now-fiance and asked him out.
Outside of my fiance, I experience undirected sexual arousal only maybe once or twice per month, generally corresponding to the day I ovulate and the day I start my period. The only porn that does anything at all for me is BDSM porn between two women who are both clearly enjoying it (or at least are decent enough actresses?). I’ve realized that I’m aroused by the situations they’re in and imagining myself in those situations with my fiance (and I think seeing other men’s penises kind of weirds me out, so straight porn does nothing for me). Being able to acknowledge that I enjoy being submissive, in a sexual context only, took me a long time and caused me a lot of confusion. But the fact remains that that kind of thing arouses me, but I have never been attracted to anyone other than my fiance and can’t really imagine how distracting it would be to be attracted to random people or to want to talk to someone just based on what they look like. I appreciate this post as I’m continuing to try to understand my own sexuality, and I think demisexuality is important to acknowledge because if I assume that what I feel is “normal”, then it gets much harder to understand why behaviors like flirting, casual sex, etc. are appealing to others and much easier to instead judge people who enjoy them.
I’m glad you enjoyed the post!
I have similar feelings about porn some of the time: I can definitely enjoy it by thinking about how much I’d like to do that thing, or have it done to me. This is less arousing, though, and more like looking at food and thinking “Man, that looks good, I’d love to eat that,” even while I’m not hungry. It certainly helps if folks look like they’re having a good time, but that’s a little complex for me.
I always found it so easy to judge people for what they enjoy. Learning not to was a big step, and can still be difficult.
I would have thought that’s how most people enjoy porn – it’s how I do, and I’m far from demisexual.
I don’t have a problem with finding a new word for things that are actually a majority experience. But I think that:
1) Demisexual writing as I’ve seen it so far focuses on demisexuality as a supposedly oppressed minority, rather than discussing that this is something many people can identify with and dissecting the culture which makes us assume everyone else is hyper-sexual and ourselves as inadequate
2) Relatedly, I’ve seen demisexual identified people use that as their ‘LGBT/oppression cred’ to join in discussions of oppression of LGBT people as though their experience are directly comparable to persecuted LGBT kids (and I’m including some really serious stuff, not ‘it was awkward explaining to my parents but it was basically okay’ type stories)
3) I’ve also seen it turn to sex negativity and slut shaming super easily, as though only/mostly feeling attracted to people you love is a superior way to be, not like you other indiscriminating women who make me want to vomit just thinking about the things you do with STRANGERS oh my god yeuck – as though this was such an unusual thing to say and proof of the speaker’s special oppressedness, rather than dovetailing neatly with common or garden misogyny.
Basically, I’d find demisexuality fascinating if the discussions focussed on things like the general culture’s attempt to sell sexiness and how alienating that is to almost everyone, on constructing your own view of relationships and sexuality against the grain of standard narratives, that kind of thing. But mostly what I see isn’t like that, it’s an attempt to turn a perfectly common and not particularly oppressed model of attraction into a Super Big Deal rather than an interesting reframing. Most of the conversations that I’ve seen seem to be about how unfair it is that people aren’t taking them seriously. Which, eh. Isn’t that easy to take seriously
If emotional bonds are the sole determinant of sexual attraction, how is the sexual attraction determined after the emotional bond is formed? If sexual attraction necessarily follows the formation of an emotional bond, how could you explain friendships or family members? How could a loss of sexual attraction over time be explained by this?
Heh. I’m afraid I can’t answer that first question in a very satisfying way. How is any kind of sexual attraction determined? For me–and I do speak only for myself–it’s usually been something like this: I like a person. We’re friends. I fall in love with that person. I start to develop sexual feelings for them as this occurs.
I think you’ve misunderstood how I’m using “necessarily.” I think you think I’m saying is “When I form an emotional bond, sexual attraction follows.” I am actually saying this: “If I don’t form an emotional bond, sexual attraction cannot exist.” An emotional bond is necessary, but not sufficient, for sexual attraction.
As for who gets the sexual attraction, and who doesn’t… I’m sure that varies person to person, just like it does with folks who aren’t demi. Some people probably require a certain amount of intimacy, others need romantic love, still others probably wait until a special something they can’t quite define appears. Relationships are mysterious.
I don’t think there are ironclad rules about when a demisexual must be attracted to someone, there are only rules about when a demisexual is able to be attracted to someone. Being in love with someone allows for me to be sexually attracted to them, but I don’t imagine it forces me to be sexually attracted to them.
I am definitely in the camp of demisexuals who are often thought of as misleading, consufing, a tease, overly selective, conceited, etc. (uh, yeah, OkCupid was kind of pointless…) Because I’m also in a poly relationship, I am sometimes thought of as jealous, controlling, or not-really-poly. Why wouldn’t I want to replace those negative, incorrect labels with one that actually describes who I am and why I don’t want to date you even though you’re cute?
When more-sexuals (to borrow your term) find out about my demisexuality, and believe that it exists, they pause and are then surprised at how many more variations of sexuality exist than they previously thought. And that’s a cool thing! “So you’re super dirty, cleverly flirty, have a very high sex drive – and there are only a few human beings on the planet that you’ve ever wanted to even passionately kiss?” YES!!! And I can’t help it!!!
Understanding anything on the asexual-to-more-sexual spectrum shouldn’t be a diagnosis or like trying to understand hipsters. It is a way of correctly interpreting human responses and choices beyond those that we have never stopped to question and that society takes for granted. Just because you may want to fuck every other person, doesn’t mean others do. Just because a kiss means something to you, doesn’t mean it has that same significance to the person you’re kissing. Just because my family thought bisexuals would want to fuck everyone, doesn’t mean they do. And I certainly don’t.
PS: I enjoy porn. Not sure what that says about me. Demisexual voyeur? Haha.
Hi. I only recently discovered that this word demisexual existed. And to be quite honest, I’m a little relieved. I’m a woman in my 30s and I’ve never had the desire to sleep with people. Ever. Unless I was in a committed relationship with them and we had a connection. My only three meaningful relationships I have been intimate in have all been relationships that started off as friends in some way. Anyone else I ever dated, or tried to end.. failed miserably, as I just wasn’t into it. So, I stopped dating. Because I felt it was a waste of time. I had no desire to date. Or meet people to make out with or sleep with. Or anything. And the idea of being intimate with people.. was repulsive to me and just not happening. Often, I’d be called a prude and similar things. But I don’t think of myself of such. Cuz I’m not. I’m very open and sexual in a relationship once I open up with them.
The gender of the person doesn’t play a role for me when i connect with someone. So, it doesn’t matter if it is a male or female who I connect with. I don’t choose that. It just happens. There is no gender barrier for me to connect with someone.
Anyway, I’m just rambling now.. but, I wanted to say.. I was really relieved that i did find this term and other people talking about this the internet.. Because for a long time.. I just thought I was strange and different. And i never understood why I was the way I was. To know there is a label doesn’t make me feel good that I’m a “label”.. it just makes me feel relieved that I’m not a weirdo.. and not the only person experiencing this. So, it all makes sense to me now.
Thank you for your article. I can see why people would have a problem with this term. I’ve told two people.. and I’ve had different reactions from both. One of them was even slightly offended.. thinking I was insulting her for having sexual desires for others and thinking I was better than them. Which is not the case at all. :-/
I wish there were more information and material about this on the internet though as I did not find that much. I don’t get why it has to be so controversial. Like you said.. it is not about not wanting to sleep with people until you’re in a committed relationship. it’s not about that at all. It’s the fact that you have absolutely no desire or want to. and that’s the difference.
Thanks for your writings