Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2011-09-14 07:58 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2011-09-14 07:58 pm
[ 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 ], [
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2011-09-15 05:07 am (UTC)(link)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?
no subject
no subject
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. -_-;;
no subject
(Anonymous) 2011-09-15 05:44 pm (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2011-09-15 06:10 pm (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
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 06:36 pm (UTC)(link)Not at all. ...And I'm a little surprised that you misread it that way. I'm saying that this is how most people are already having sex, and that this is the way people are being told to have sex. At no time did I ever say that this is the only way people should have sex, or that this is the only people can have sex.
Given the prevalence of the pron industry, I highly doubt that everyone has the ~need to be connected with somoene to enjoy sexual activities, whether it's alone or with (a) partner(s).
I didn't say "everyone". I said most people. According to AVEN, it's not uncommon for asexuals and demisexuals to become aroused while looking at porn, too. Also, if you were to ever talk to a professional in the sex industry, you'd most likely be told that the majority of johns ask for a certain aesthetic (a curvaceous redhead, say, or a tall dark-haired woman, or a certain game ("pretend to be my boss at work"), or even ask for the same prostitute over and over. They aren't just looking for a wet hole - they want to feel a connection, even if it's a false one.
no subject
If it's a certain aesthetic, or a certain game... Is that really the same as looking for a "connection"? Or is that just the aesthetic thing they need? Though I will grant your point in asking for the same prostitute.
I really don't think that this is going to get either of us anywhere. If you still wish to keep discussing it, that's cool, but I'm not sure it's really going to get either of us anywhere. :/
TL;DR
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'tshutupam verbose lol)TL;DR Continued
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."