fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1716 ]

[ SECRET POST #1716 ]

⌈ Secret Post #1716 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

23.

__________________________________________________

24.

__________________________________________________

25.

__________________________________________________

26.

__________________________________________________

27.

__________________________________________________

28.

__________________________________________________

29.

__________________________________________________

30.

__________________________________________________

31.

__________________________________________________

32.

__________________________________________________

33.

__________________________________________________

34.

__________________________________________________

35.

__________________________________________________

36.

__________________________________________________

37.

__________________________________________________

38.

__________________________________________________

39.

__________________________________________________

40.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 134 secrets from Secret Submission Post #245.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - hit/ship/spiration ], [ 0 - omgiknowthem ], [ 0 - take it to comments ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"Attraction to a group of people in an orientation. Attraction to a single person is a crush."

That makes more sense, then. But I don't understand what that has to do with being physically attracted to someone, which is what demisexuality is about.

I think the biggest issue here is the term demisexual, yes? The balancing point between sexual of any sort, and no sexual feelings. Someone can be homosexual and still demisexual, they're still attracted to the group, but not physically attracted unless they get to know somone.

But by slapping a label on it, you (general you) are doing several things. You are saying that this is unusual, when it fact it's really really common. And you are saying that this kind of attraction is to be differentiated from people who don't need that connection in order to feel sexual attraction, which, once again, is slutshaming.

There is no reason to label yourself as demisexual. There is a reason to label yourself heterosexual or homosexual, or even asexual, since people looking for sexual and romantic partners need these labels to identify potential partners. But there is no reason to say "I am only turned on by people I know". There is absolutely no purpose served by this label, except that it's another label you can slap on yourself, and people love labels. No benefit, and quite a lot of negativity (whether you agree with it or not).

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. If you want to know if your partner is interested in having sex with you, ask them. If you want to take the relationship slow, and not start having sex right away, you can say that. Telling somebody "I will only want to have sex with you once we have a deep emotional connection" just sounds like something out of a teenager's diary.

For you, maybe.

It's a fad and it will pass, thankfully. I'm just concerned that this trend of trying to divvy up interests into the tiniest possible categories is going to result in a population even more isolated from each other.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Who knows? I just feel like it's too much like label policing to say that a group of people can't self-identify because XYZ. I mean, I'd understand if XYZ was offensive in a way that didn't require a leap of logic (i.e. beatingpeopleupsexual), but...

You think it requires a leap of logic. For a lot of the rest of us, it's very obvious. I think you're just too close to the issue to be able to see it.

Demisexuality is the normative position. Sex outside of a committed relationship is considered deviant. By putting an additional label on the normative position, demisexuality is reinforcing the systematic oppression of all non-demisexuals.

Here's another analogy: say there is a mixed-gender population, men and women with a variety of interests and abilities. Then a group of the CIS-men form a group called The Andras Men. The Andras Men state that their group is a group of men who are tough, who don't cry, who fix things, and all the other stereotypes of masculinity. "But we don't think all those other men are pussies!" they say. "There's nothing wrong with being girly, and we think calling somebody a wimp or a girl just because they aren't like us is a bad thing. Really."

How much of the "rest of you" (besides 2/3?) anon's are pissed off by the OP's stupid use of the word "slut", though? >_>

"Demisexuality is the normative position. Sex outside of a committed relationship is considered deviant. By putting an additional label on the normative position, demisexuality is reinforcing the systematic oppression of all non-demisexuals."

No, it isn't. Maybe wanting to have sex with the bond included is the normative position. But physically needing a bond with someone to even think about performing in a sexual manner, be it masterbation or sex isn't the normative position.

I think the issue is this: You think that being demisexual is a choice of someones, as seen by your anology wherein the group of Andras Men choose to form a group, whereas I believe that there is not enough evidence to discount the idea of demisexuality being one more variation of normal sexuality, and thereby not a choice.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2011-09-15 17:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

loracarol.livejournal.com - 2011-09-15 17:52 (UTC) - Expand

da

Labels are fine for feeling like you aren't alone, but in those situations, explaining your personal situation is more useful than a label. Sex is not automatically on the table with every date with someone who likes sex. Labels are useless, actually comparing individual wants and needs and expectations is what's needed.

Lesbian doesn't even mean "don't bother asking, boys" after all. Labels: useless when it comes to dating.

You're right, but labels (if that's something that helps a person) can be useful to that/those person/people. And comparing wants and needs are good, but having a way to explain it is helpful as well.

Labels: Can be useful, but that doesn't mean they are automatically.

Eh, hypothetically. My encounters with people's labels has more often informed me that they say things about that person's attitude toward the label, not what the person is actually like.

Yeah, people like that bug me. I mean, if you like personal labels, and you have them for yourself (but you don't try and label other people) that's one thing. When you act like your personal labels are the most important thing about you, though, or act like everyone should feel a certain way... Yeah, that's not cool. :/

This. Very well said. I don't get why some people have such a problem with the way other people identify themselves. If the label doesn't work for you, don't use it. But don't attack other people for using labels that make them feel more comfortable.

When that label is an implicit attack on me? You're damn right I'm going to say something against it.

How are people who don't need "that connection" sluts to be (hypothetically) shamed, though? This is the part I don't get, you and the other anon(s) are all up in arms about how it's slut shaming, but I don't get why that's turning people into sluts to be shamed.

I can't stay much longer, but I'll try to explain this one.

The prevailing culture is very slut-shaming. From what I've read in this discussion so far I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me on that one.

Demisexuals are people who only experience sexual attraction to people they have a close emotional connection to, right? This label differentiates demisexuals from people who do not need that connection. Demisexuals claim that the differentiation is between people who need the connection, and people who don't necessarily need the connection, but if you define yourself as The X Group, you are pointing out that the other group is full of Ys, not that the other group is Xs and Ys combined.

By identifying themselves as needing this connection, demisexuals are saying that others don't.

Now, people who have sex without deep emotional connections are commonly called sluts. This is why demisexuality as a concept is a slut-shaming concept. This doesn't mean there's anything bad or wrong with people who need a deep emotional connection in order to become sexually aroused. It just means that by choosing to label themselves by this preference, they are implicitly slutshaming everyone who doesn't identify as demi.

Does that make sense?

gdi, wifi died for the night. Your post is an interesting one, and I'll be posting a full reply to it tomorrow (usong my phone right now, but it's not the best). Is that agreeable?

The prevailing culture is very slut-shaming. From what I've read in this discussion so far I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me on that one.

Agreed.

It makes sense in a way, but I still can't completely agree with you. Your argument seems to me like "X group can't self-identify because some people might assume Y group are sluts to be shamed because of the definition of X group" which is just a bit over the top. Add into that the fact that non-demi's are the norm, and more people are likely to look on a person who is demisexual as someone who is weird/a virgin/a prude/ice cold bitch/"queer" (which shouldn't even be an insult IMHO, but it often is, I seriously doubt that most people would look at demisexuality and assume it meant the rest of society is a bunch of "sluts", rather that there is somethign wrong with demisexuals.

So, while I agree with the way you put your argument, I can't agree that it's a valid argument for most of the population/society or that it actually is effective in a larger group than just LJ circles. I mean, you could easily switch the labels in that argument around a bit, and argue that anyone who is bi/pan/omni are sluts to be shamed... Which they aren't. -_-;;

Your argument seems to me like "X group can't self-identify because some people might assume Y group are sluts to be shamed because of the definition of X group" which is just a bit over the top.

If X group defines themselves in opposition to Y group, X group represents the socially accepted default, and Y group is composed of a systematically oppressed minority? Then yes, I am saying that X group should not self-identify that way.

Add into that the fact that non-demi's are the norm, and more people are likely to look on a person who is demisexual as someone who is weird/a virgin/a prude/ice cold bitch/"queer"

Asexuals are seen as frigid and prudes, and sexuals (a term I really don't like) are seen as sluts and whores. That's misogyny, plain and simple. No matter what kind of sex a woman is interested in, it will be considered wrong... unless it is sex in a committed relationship with a person she has a strong emotional connection to. Men aren't exempt from this, either. If a man has a lot of sex with a lot of partners he's cheered on as a stud, but media tells us this is an unsatisfying situation, and that he'll only be happy when he settles down. Seriously, go watch any movie with a man and a woman as the stars. In 99% of the cases they will end up having a sexual relationship, but only after they've formed a strong (frequently stress-related) relationship.

Too, there's the part where love is an addition. (http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html) Our brains reward us with happy-making chemicals when we form pair-bonds, and it's been scientifically proven that, for most people, the sex is better when you have a deep emotional connection. Sound familiar?

Most people are already demisexual. The label is unnecessary.

How are non-demi's the "systematically oppressed minority"? Seriously, how. Hell, neither demi's nor non-demi's are really oppressed until you start bringing gender into the equation. There is no systematic oppression... Unless you're talking about social stigma, but that is not the same as oppression. >_>

But demisexuality isn't saying that a deep emotional connection makes sex "better", it's saying that it's required to even exist.

No, most people aren't already demisexual, going by the way you seem to describe it. You description says that it makes sex better to have a bond, mine is saying that the bond has to be there for a sexual relationship to even exist. We are really talking about two different things here.

Slut-shaming is misogyny, is women being told they aren't allowed autonomy over their own bodies. This is oppression. Being told constantly from every quarter that there is only one way you are permitted to be sexually active is pretty damn oppressive.

How many people do you honestly think are going out and having sex with people they don't care about? Honestly? I mean, do you honestly believe that huge proportions of the population are having casual one-night stands all the time? Because I can tell you, they aren't.

The few who do tend to be very vocal about it, yes, and there are quite a few very visible celebrations that encourage this type of behavior (Spring Break, I'm looking at you), but to assume that most people are having sex with people they don't particularly care about is ludacris. Most people are waiting until they feel a connection with another person. Just look at the prevalence of all those internet dating sites, where people are looking for relationships, not just hook-ups.

Our language uses a lot of sexual terms, but they aren't always accurate, and I think this may be another point of confusion here. When I see a man whose face and body I find aesthetically pleasing and who I would enjoy pursuing a relationship with, I might say "I'd hit that". This doesn't mean I'm currently sexually aroused. If somebody on the internet posts a picture of an attractive woman, I might type /faps forever. This doesn't mean I'm actually masturbating. It doesn't even mean I'm aroused.

To want a relationship really is the default. To need a connection to become interested in sex really is the default.

"Slut-shaming is misogyny, is women being told they aren't allowed autonomy over their own bodies. This is oppression. Being told constantly from every quarter that there is only one way you are permitted to be sexually active is pretty damn oppressive."

Isn't that what you're doing, though? Claiming that there is only one way (the so-called "normative" demisexuality) that people have sex? Because that's what I'm seeing... Isn't that just as oppresive? To say that there is only ever one way to have sex? Only one way that people are sexually aroused? I'm trying to say that there is a range of sexuality, of which demisexuality is just one of the ways sex works. You're trying to say that demiseuality is the so-called "default" and the same for everyone.

"How many people do you honestly think are going out and having sex with people they don't care about? Honestly? I mean, do you honestly believe that huge proportions of the population are having casual one-night stands all the time? Because I can tell you, they aren't."

I never said that it was just about one night stands, though. In fact, I believe at one point I pointed out that it has to do with everything from masterbation to sex, and everything in between and beyond. This has nothing to do with "one night stands".

"To want a relationship really is the default. To need a connection to become interested in sex really is the default."

To be interested in sex with a partner, maybe. But to be interested in sexual things? Given the prevalence of the porn industry, I highly doubt that everyone has the ~need to be connected with someone to enjoy sexual activities, whether it's alone or with (a) partner(s).

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2011-09-15 18:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

loracarol.livejournal.com - 2011-09-15 19:30 (UTC) - Expand

I've been following this thread with quite a lot of interest, and I think I'm getting a handle on demisexuality. I guess most people would seem to prefer an emotional connection with their sexual partners, but can still be aroused by someone they don't actually have that deep emotional bond with, right? Please note that I say "are aroused by" rather than saying "have sex with", because the two are not the same. If they were I'd be doing [fill in the name of your fictional character of choice] right now. ;)

Buuuuut for demisexuals, as I understand from this thread, it's not that they prefer to have sex with people they have some kind of bond with; it's that they are only physically aroused by those people. Like, appearance doesn't really come into it, or personality, or whatever; they can only be aroused by someone they know well. There's no "Wow he's hot/I'd totally hit that" or what. If they don't know that person pretty well already they can't find them attractive, in any degree. Is that correct?

If that is right, then I can understand how that would tend to limit the dating pool. Because, okay, sure, there's the option of going up to the cute girl/guy at the bar/bus stop/after class/whenever and asking them to accompany one in partaking the beverage of one's choice; but if that person doesn't even register as someone one might be interested in having a sexual relationship with until after one knows them fairly well already, then the people one would innately be attracted to would be limited, by definition, to one's immediate circle of acquaintances.

Which would kind of suck; but then, it's kind of like making friends in a way, isn't it (is it)? Because one can't just look at them and tell instantly that one has a lot in common with them, or that one would enjoy hanging out with them. One has to sort of fall into it gradually by discovering those shared interests. And the person who might be the best friend in the world to you, the one friendship that defines your life, could be the person who rides the bus ahead of you every day; but until one actually gets to know them one would never know that. So as I understand demisexuality from this thread, it's similar to that, but taken to a sexual degree.

(continued below because I ~~can'tshutup~~ am verbose lol)

So I can see where those who regard it as defining as "I need to have a strong emotional bond with the people I have sex with" would feel that such a definition, by definition, tended to imply "if you're not a demisexual then you could just be fucking whoever all over the place." But if the meaning of the term actually is "I can't feel aroused by someone unless I'm already mentally intimate with them," then I'd say that, first of all, that wouldn't actually be the "normal" state for most people. Sure, most of us (so far as I can tell) want some kind of connection with the people we have sex with, for the most part; but that doesn't stop us from being attracted to (or "aroused by" if you prefer that term) someone based purely on their physical appearance. Witness all the "I'd hit that" secrets of yore. So I can understand wanting a label to self-define with. If nothing else, as someone else said above, it helps to find others who are the same, which can be vital to one's emotional health if one feels in any way not part of the "norm" (let alone diametrically different from the "norm"). But (second of all), I don't see how saying "I can't be aroused by anyone unless I have an emotional connection to begin with" is "slut-shaming." Frankly, if anything, I'd say it's a position to be pitied (and I mean "pity" here as "someone to feel compassion for" not "someone to be looked down upon").

Frankly, I'm more bothered by the concept of "normal" meaning white/heterosexual/male/American/Christian. I can see where "demisexual" with the limited definition I am viewing it with would be a minority position. I can see where some people would think there wouldn't be a need for such a label. But you know what I think would be awesome? If we did keep coming up with labels for every little thing, picking away at the idea of "normal" (/white/male/etc/etc) until there was nothing left. No "normal, and everyone else," just "everyone else." Everyone. Just... people.

So that, I think, is the dual value in having a label for what is probably a pretty small segment of the population (going with the "I can't..." definition rather than the "I prefer..." one): It helps build a community of others in a similar position, so one isn't so alone or unusual; and it helps pry another little chunk out of "normal."

I just wanted to say this is a very eloquent post and I applaud you for it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #1716 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

(no subject)

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

(no subject)

(no subject)

TL;DR

TL;DR Continued

no subject