fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2433 ]

[ SECRET POST #2433 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2433 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 073 secrets from Secret Submission Post #348.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I've got the libido of a rabbit on viagra. During my 25+ years on the planet, I've never met a person I've wanted to rub my crotch against. I'm aromantic, but if I DO fall in love one day I know that I'll be capable of enjoying sex with a partner on the same level that I'm enjoying my dildo. Sex drive =/= sexual attraction.

yeah, and i agree with that. that's why demisexuality is a farce. demisexuality claims to be a label of sexual attraction, but in reality it deals with how much sex a person is having, rather than anything that would describe what a sexuality is, at its very core.

"demisexuality claims to be a label of sexual attraction, but in reality it deals with how much sex a person is having"

...No? Demisexuality is about who you're attracted to, not what you do with them. A demisexual person who doesn't have an intense emotional bond with anyone has no sex because they have no potential sex partners, just like a straight woman who's exclusively surrounded by women has no potential sex partners. If that same demisexual person falls in love with someone, they could have sex half a dozen times a day with that person because now they have someone they're attracted to (emotionally). This isn't actually hard.

That describes most people, though. Demisexuals just seem peculiarly literal about defining it and fail to pick up on the fact that 90% of what people say about wanting to have sex is a joke.

Then I must be a special goddamn snowflake for having fun feelings in my pants when I look at that gif of Chris Evans and the punching bag.

Experiencing sexual attraction =/= wanting to pursue a sexual encounter. This is not hard.

Just speaking personally? I'm nearly 30, and in my whole life I've only ever seriously considered having sex with 3 people, all of whom I'd got emotionally close to. Having talked to other people about this in the past, that seems to be a pretty normal figure.

ok let me make this simple for you.

there are a lot of sexualities out there. demisexuality isn't one of them.

if you are straight, you are sexually attracted to some people who are the opposite gender.

if you are gay, you are sexually attracted to some people who share your gender.

if you are bisexual, you are sexually attracted to some people who fit within the gender binary, but your attracttion is not exclusive to one of the two genders in the binary.

if you are pansexual, you are sexually attracted to some people regardless of their gender, gender identity, sexual parts, etc.

if you are asexual, you are not sexually attracted to any person, regardless of their gender, gender identity, sexual parts, etc.

there are other sexualities but demisexuality is not one of them. at the very least it should not be listed as a sexuality on par with these others. call the status "demisexuality" if you wish but know that the term is misleading, and know that most people who adhere to the label do so under the impression that it IS on par with the sexualities aforementioned.

sexuality is complex, but it is also remarkably defined. for many, it's one axis of a grid, the other being romantic attraction. someone who is asexual but falls in love with someone of their same gender is thus a homoromantic asexual. they won't find the people they fall in love with sexually attractive, but there is still love there.

sometimes people who are otherwise straight or gay or asexual find one or two exceptions. to them these exceptions are so rare and negligible that they don't warrant a change in label. people who claim to be demisexual and feel genuine about the term are generally exhibiting asexuality with exceptional tendencies, as many people do. others just have low libidos.

that's basically the gist of it. you don't need a label for someone who isn't very sexual as a whole but is sexual towards one or two people they feel close to. demisexuality as a label is looked down on largely because it's more or less slut-shaming; you thinking you are special or different because you don't have ~casual sex or whatever.

but to me, the worst part about the term: people who use the label never bring it up in casual passing. they always want to talk about it, and tell you how “oppressed” they are. the label is used to partition someone from their own privileges. they feel robbed of being the “default” in society. being straight but picky or bisexual but selective or gay but choosy isn't good enough for them. they wan't something that will sound vaguely like they have a claim to social justice issues. those same people might show up to pride events to drown out those that pride events are intended for. you only crushing on one person doesn't give you some whacky, colourful identity. you're just a blubbering privileged idiot trying to pass yourself off as something more.

For real, though, sexuality is about attraction, not behavior. Demisexuality isn't any different. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much sex you have or who you have it with, and absolutely everything to do with under what circumstances you're sexually attracted to people. If someone calls themself demisexual because they "don't have ~casual sex or whatever", then... they're wrong? Because that's not what it means. :|

Now, is calling demisexuality its own thing misleading? Should it instead be considered a subset of asexuality - like you said, asexual with exceptions? Quite possibly so! But because there is a term that other people use and understand, I'm going to use it until a better term comes into general use.

you're right, sexuality is entirely about sexual attraction. however demisexuality isn't just that - it's also the circumstances under which the sexual attraction occurs.

it is also pretty offensive in its implications. i'd advise not using it, and it would be easier just saying you don't sleep with people unless you are emotionall close to them - as that is something people will understand, without the gross subtleties - but do as you will.

I know what you're saying. I really do. I don't want to offend people. But having a word for how I am makes me feel more... normal, and less like a freak, I guess, and I don't want to give that up either. :c

i guess that's fair enough. i just don't think the idea necessitates a label, but w/e.

It's okay. I'll work on trying to bring it up less, and hopefully that will help. Thanks for being civil, in any event. I really do appreciate it. :)

how is doing what 90% of people on the planet do (either from choice or social conditioning) somehow being 'a freak'?

I think most of the people on the planet are capable of a much wider range of sexual attraction than I am. This tumblr post explains it better than I can, albeit in a rather satirical manner.

If we want to be anecdotal, for a long time I wasn't sexually attracted to anyone. Then I became sexually attracted to one person, but no one else. Then I discovered asexuality. But that was defined as no sexual attraction to any people, so I knew I couldn't be asexual, even though the rest of the definition seemed to fit. But I couldn't think of myself as hetero-, bi-, or pansexual either, since one person isn't much of a sample size. So I didn't know what I was for a while, and that is why I felt like a freak.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-01 12:26 (UTC) - Expand

for God's sake you are not a freak for wanting an emotional connection before having sex (I'd say the majority of people are like that, whatever they may claim) and anyone who tried to imply you were is simply plain wrong. You don't need a damn label, other people need to shut the hell up about your choices, which are YOURS.

/Straight and had precisely one (1) sexual relationship in my life (still going on, it's called marriage)here. Also boggling.

That's not actually what demisexuality is, tho

I "want an emotional connection before having sex," but I am not demisexual, because I am capable of finding people sexually attractive based on how they look. That doesn't mean I want to run out and fuck them, but I am still attracted to them. That's the difference; that's what demisexual people don't experience.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-01 17:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

vethica - 2013-09-01 21:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

vethica - 2013-09-01 13:53 (UTC) - Expand

There's not actually anything "offensive" about a person calling themselves demisexual unless you assume that they're saying a lot of additional things that they may not really be saying. The only "gross subtleties" present are the ones you're bringing to the table.

apparently you've never watched or heard somebody describe what their demisexuality means to them, because it always boils down to being ~different for not having loads of casual sex like all those other "sluts" out there. there's always that implication.

(reply from suspended user)

I could get on board with your saying that demisexuality isn't an orientation in the sense that gay/straight/bi/etc. are, that it's not queer and it's not marginalized, but you don't stop there. You then go on to say that it's not a real label at all (while, ironically, incorrectly defining it).

Demisexuality isn't being asexual with exceptions. It's not having a low libido. It's not slut-shaming or thinking you're ~above people who have casual sex (and people who do act that way are assholes). It's having sexual attraction work differently for you. It's having no idea whether a person is physically attractive or not, because the only things that affect you sexually are emotions. It's about attraction, not behavior or sex drive. This isn't actually a difficult concept, if you know the difference between finding someone attractive and wanting to have sex with them. Demisexuality is about the former, but you seem fixated on the latter.

i didn't label it incorrectly. the literal definition is feeling sexual attraction only to people whom you've formed an emotional connection with. that doesn't make you special. you don't need a special label.

Props for this comment, but...while you've given what's now a popular definition of bisexual, it's not one that most bisexuals agree with, especially not older bisexuals. 'Bisexual' was coined in sexology, where it means what the middle of the Kinsey scale says it means - "both homosexual and heterosexual". The 'bi' isn't about the gender binary but the sexual binary (which IS absolute by definition: eg, I am female, so if I'm dating another woman that's homosexual, if I'm dating someone who isn't a woman that's heterosexual - whether that person is a man or a neutrois or a third-gender person, if they're not female it's by definition a heterosexual relationship for me.) IMX the difference between 'bisexual' and 'pansexual' is simply a cultural and generational shift that boils down to 'did you come out before or after 2005?' Personally I'm really not comfortable with the pansexual movement. I fit the definition (as do pretty much all the other bi adults I know), but I'm much more at home with 'bisexual'.

oh, thanks for that info, i wasn't aware. i thought the difference between bi- and pan- was the gender binary.

can you explain what about the pansexual movement bothers you? i'm genuinely curious.

A few things, of varying levels of rationality.

That it's an ideological label rather than a sexological one (going back to the fact that in a practical sense there is no real difference between pan people and bi people). Because of that, it feels very much like a trend label a la demisexual rather than an orientation.

That they're making a particular ideological distinction based on being open to relationships with nonbinary people. Wtf, you do not own nonbinaries' asses. Out in the real world nonbinary people hook up with all kinds of folks - straight-identified, gay-identified, bi-identified. Underscores that there is no real distinction between pan and bi.

That they say and do biphobic things a LOT, starting with circulating the redefinition of bisexuality that you were using - they never checked in with the older bisexual community to even check what the fucking word meant or what kind of relationships bi people actually had. They often say bisexuals are transphobic - usually we'd say it's not cool to accuse an entire demographic of people of something with no evidence? but no, it happens a lot and I don't see pansexuals calling each other out on this shit. Also, I've honest-to-god seen pan-identified people saying that the reason they don't identify as bi is that bi people are all promiscuous and appearance-focused whereas their pansexuality is all about being attracted to people's personalities - wtf?!!!?

So...yeah. In my meaner moments I'd say that pansexuality is a mixture of buying into biphobia, using nonbinary people as ideological accessories, and being snowflakes. I don't attack them or anything, though I do call out the shittalking when I see it.

that's definitely understandable and i see where you're coming from. i actually identify as pansexual (hence why i asked your opinion) but mostly on the basis that i've seen a number of bisexual people claim they wouldn't be attracted to intersex or ftm/mtf people, etc, and that doesn't describe my own attraction. i thought the term better described my openness to different kinds of non-binary relationships but it looks like i was wrong in assuming bisexual people were confined to the binary (i guess that's what happens when you use a small group of people to paint the whole demographic). i apologise for that. i'll look further into both labels as i don't want to offend anybody on accident.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-01 23:35 (UTC) - Expand

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only