fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1907 ]

[ SECRET POST #1907 ]

⌈ Secret Post #1907 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

[Disney's Gargoyles]

__________________________________________________

08.

[X-Men: First Class]

__________________________________________________

09.

[keanu reeves]

__________________________________________________

10.

[keanu reeves]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

11. [SPOILERS for Death Note]

__________________________________________________

12. [SPOILERS for Kuragehime]

__________________________________________________

13. [SPOILERS for The Walking Dead]

__________________________________________________

14. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]

__________________________________________________

15. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]

__________________________________________________

16. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]

__________________________________________________

17. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

18. [TRIGGER WARNING for sexual abuse]

__________________________________________________

19. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

20. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #272.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - hit/ship/spiration ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

no, plenty of people are not interested in sex with people they don't know very well. it's the defining it as a separate, special orientation that makes it slutshaming and attention-wanting

No, the defining of it as a separate orientation* is to account for the fact that it reflects a sexuality-based decision rather than a mental one. It's not "I'm saving myself, aren't I so great?", it's "meh, not attracted...*gets to know the person*...okay, now I really want to hit that".

*And in any case, it's not actually that separate -- one isn't just demisexual, they're either demi-heterosexual, demi-homosexual, demi-bisexual, or, for those who think of bi and pan as distinct from each other, demi-pansexual. It's like agnosticism -- all it means is that you're not sure (or believe that nobody can be sure) whether there is a God. It's not incompatible with religion: "I believe in the word of the Bible, but I'm not quite sure I believe in God."

so...

"blah blah i'm a special snowflake and i'm more pure than you in my sexual desires"

More like..."blah blah I'm not going to consider anything anyone says if it contradicts my already established opinion"

You should go into politics.

lol

look at your life, look at your choices

nayrt

this particular cliche doesn't seem to apply, please try another

I was thinking this.

I mean, that just doesn't make sense in context.

You must be pretty full of yourself to think everybody's personal labels for their own self-clarification are reflections of their opinion about what you do and how you conduct yourself.

Butting in here because you mention a very important reason why I don't consider demi-sexuality to be a sexual orientation: "ne isn't just demisexual, they're either demi-heterosexual, demi-homosexual, demi-bisexual, or[...] demi-pansexual."

Being heterosexual is a sexual orientation, being homosexual is a sexual orientation, being bi- or pansexual is an orientation. The demi is, at best, a further qualifier.

A sexual orientation describes who you are attracted to in terms of gender. "Someone I have an emotional connection with" is not a gender.

To be honest, I think demi-sexual describes nothing more than a type. Instead of being attracted to certain physical attributes as well, your type is only people you can emotionally connect with. But that person still has to be a member of the gender(s) you are sexually attracted to - your own gender if you're homosexual, opposite if you are heterosexual, etc.

Let's pretend for a second that I'm 100% straight. I find dark blond hair and green eyes attractive, but, seeing as I'm 100% straight, I only find a guys with dark blond hair and green eyes sexually attractive.

If you're a demi-homosexual, you'll find yourself attracted to someone you can emotionally connect to, no matter what they look like, but that person still has to be the same gender as you.

And that's not even going into how (dare I say it) most people find themselves attracted to people they can emotionally connect with. I've found myself attracted to people who I don't find physically attractive at all after getting to know them better. There is truth in the saying that what truly matters is the inside.

I agree with you, but am curious. I label myself as asexual and see it as a sexual orientation (I am not sexually attracted to anyone), however have seen other people who identify as asexual include the "hetero" or "homo" asexual. Imo, I see the "hetero/etc" as the qualifier in this situation, but would you consider the "asexual" akin to "demisexual" as a qualifier?

I've always seen people use the hetero/homo/ect. asexual description to mean that they are not sexually attracted to either gender, but that they can only be romantically attracted - in a purely emotional sense - to people of a specific gender.

See, this was a short and concise explanation. Why can't I do that?

I see asexuality as a sexual orientation as well, as it means that you aren't sexually attracted to anyone period, no matter which gender.

Have you heard of "romantic orientation"? I think that is what you are describing, where the hetero/homo/etc. refers to the gender you find yourself romantically drawn to. Basically, if you're a bi(-romantic) asexual you are an asexual who finds themselves romantically drawn to both women and men.

I actually wrote my other comment by comparing "demisexual" to x-romantic, but the more I thought about it the more I came to the conclusion that I don't think the two are comparable. Because again, romantic orientation is about the gender/s you are drawn to, just that it's romantically rather than sexually in this case.

Personally, I think about it this way: There is the concept of the orientation, which is made up of both romantic orientation and sexual orientation. Now, disregarding that sexuality is fluid and that we're not all 0s, 1s, 3s, or 6s on the Kinsey Scale* we can safely say that for most sexuals, romantic orientation = sexual orienation. Which is why we don't say hetero-romantic heterosexual, but just heterosexual. It's just redundant.

Asexuals, on the other hand, need** this further qualifier to define themselves. Obviously, you don't need to feel sexually attracted to someone to fall in love with them, but that person still has to be of the gender as specified by your (romantic) orientation.

If "demisexual" were the same as romantic orientation (or a different kind of romantic orientation) we would be able to say that someone is a demisexual asexual - an oxymoron, as a asexual that doesn't feel sexually attracted to anyone, emotional connection non-withstanding.

Which is all just a very long way of saying yes, "x-romantic" is another qualifier, but a fundamentally different one than "demisexual"***. Romantic orientation is the non-sexual equivalent of sexual orientation, and the other half that builds the concept of orientation. Demisexuality is neither a subset or romantic, nor sexual orientation and has, therefore, be treated as a different concept.

(I really hope this makes sense. It's 4am for me and I didn't get much sleep yesterday. And, I should note that this is all just personal opinion. I'm not an expert at this, nor did I study or do extensive research on the topic of sexuality and/or orientation.)

* For the sake of simplicity and intelligibility I'll disregard fluidity of orientation and presuppose that a person is either 100% hetero/homo/bi/pan/a-sexual/romantic.

**In as much as we actually need labels, which is a different discussion.

*** Discounting the debate about whether or not "demisexual" is actually a valid qualifier at all or, as other people said, merely a different kind of slut-shaming. For the sake of simplicity I assumed for this and my previous comment that demisexuality is an actual thing.

Excellent answer, and totally coherent and makes sense.

I find this whole conversation interesting, thanks for playing. ;)

This is how I think of it.

I'd also like to point out that I don't think this means that no one should identify as a demisexual, just that it describes an aspect of sexual attraction separate from orientation. I also think that having more words to describe sexual attraction outside of orientation is a good thing. I think people get really hung up on orientation and ignore the other aspects of attraction.

I have to admit, I'm not sure how I feel about demisexual as a label. There is this bitter taste of slut-shaming that comes with the term. Even if the person that uses the term to describe themselves doesn't mean it, it has the potential for slut-shaming in it's very definition. (The whole 'I'm better than those whores who'll sleep with anyone they meet, I need a ~*~real emotional~*~ connection'-thing the anti-demisexual anons have been yelling all over the thread.)

I'm not sure at which point labels become obsolete. Orientation is useful as general indicator, but as you said, there are other aspects of attraction than just orientation. I'm just nor sure if labelling these other aspects is useful.

In the case of demisexual is it really necessary to say that you're demisexual? Does that help anyone? Random example:

When you're at a bar and a guy starts flirting with you*. Stating your orientation helps in this situation, as the guy will then know if he even has a chance, or if his gender already disqualifies him. Saying you're demisexual, on the other hand, doesn't help any. So you can only feel attracted to people you have an emotional connection with. All right, but to which gender are you attracted to? What's your orientation, romantic or sexual? Demisexual tells you next to nothing. It doesn't even discount a one-night stand for sure, as it's possible to form an emotional bond with someone who have only met a few hours ago.

That's why I dislike demisexual as a label. It carries no pertinent information. And then, if you use demisexual as a label, what are people called for whom the opposite is true? People who don't need to have an emotional connection at all to feel sexual attraction? (This is where the potential for slut-shaming gets high again.) And what about people for who both is true?

I guess for me it's acknowledging other aspects of attraction, yay! Labels, nay. Demisexual in particular, not-quite-nay-but-really-not-yay-either. If this makes sense. (I mentioned upthread it's 4am for me. Actually, now it 5am. And I have yet to go to bed. My sleep rhythm is completely fucked since a couple of days, so I apologize if my sleep-deprived ramblings don't make any sense.)

* Assuming hetero-normativity is not the rule and that homo-/transphobia doesn't exist. Basically, a world where stating your orientation up front as no other repercussion than the other person whether or not they're the right gender for you.

I don't necessarily think that the demisexual label would be all that useful in day to day living, but I think in more in depth/academic discussions about sexual attraction in general and sexual attraction as separate from sexual orientation it might be useful.

Additionally, if we could get rid of slut shaming then there wouldn't be a problem with identifying as "whatever-word-for-not-demisexual-we-pick" since it would 1) only indicate ability to be attracted, not actions or behaviors and 2) having sex with people just because it's fun even if you aren't emotionally connected to them is totally fine!

Unfortunately, we aren't quite there yet, but that's got more to do with society and how society would use words like demisexual and "whatever-word-for-not-demisexual-we-picked", not anything inherently judgmental about those words themselves.

And to be fair in the case you're discussing, declaring your orientation wouldn't be massively helpful. Just because someone is the correct gender for me to be attracted to them doesn't mean they have any sort of change of having sex with me. Additionally, if more people knew what demisexual meant it would still give out the correct information - which would be "maybe".

I only find a guys with dark blond hair and green eyes sexually attractive.

You'd be a Sean Bean-sexual? ;)

This, pretty much. Newsflash: not all people who feel sexual attraction are sexually attracted to every single person ever. I'm 100% asexual and even I understand that, for fucks sake. "Demisexuality" is really just a pretentious way of saying "I'm a hetero/homo/bi/whateversexual who doesn't feel attraction to people I don't know."

yup

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #1907 ]

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