1942 réponses à ce sujet

[Meave]

Porn has never abused me. But your posts leave bruises on my brain.

 

 

This is one big, steamy pile of judgmental, bat-sh*t crazy nonsense. Masturbation is harmful to teenage boys? Wow. So the AMA, CMA, EMA, and every psychological researcher of the last 30 years is wrong because some self-important deluded online activist read something on the internet somewhere that supported a prejudice they have?

 

Good thing boys around the world have you to save them from their own sexuality.

 

oh but it is!!! you never heard of getting blind or hairy palms? :]]]]

[Namea]

I'm sure not everyone feels exactly the same way as you. Personally it wouldn't bother me.

 

Well bully for you but if my husband decided that he'd rather go for Palmela Handerson than bone me when we're both horny I'd probably be very very upset. If I'm not home, fine. If I'm not in the mood, fine, great...but if I'm available and willing he better choose me over his palm. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You asked people who disagreed with your idea to go away. Which is not how forums work.

That was not my intention. I apologize if it came off as such.

I was referring to the people who were denouncing demisexuality, thus being against the idea or concept. 

[DomeWing333]

That was not my intention. I apologize if it came off as such.

I was referring to the people who were denouncing demisexuality, thus being against the idea or concept. 

 

Does being against that idea or concept of demisexuality include skepticism about its inclusion among the other major sexual classifications, rather than being akin to an extreme of sexual fetishism where sexual arousal can only occur when a given condition is met? Because it does seem a bit arbitrary to say that sexual attraction that can only occur when an emotional bond is formed is a kind of sexuality, whereas, say, sexual attraction that can only occur when the object of attraction is wearing a fur suit is just a fetish. Rather than having separate terms, it seems like they both could be described as "mostly asexual except for _____." 

[AWTEW]

  

Porn has never abused me. But your posts leave bruises on my brain.
 

 
This is one big, steamy pile of judgmental, bat-sh*t crazy nonsense. Masturbation is harmful to teenage boys? Wow. So the AMA, CMA, EMA, and every psychological researcher of the last 30 years is wrong because some self-important deluded online activist read something on the internet somewhere that supported a prejudice they have?
 
Good thing boys around the world have you to save them from their own sexuality.

It was a joke, read the posts above yours.

[Boogielicious]

Now I just want to surround myself with chocolate and porn.  I may even include my spouse.

[Grieving Natashina]

This is a lesson guys.  Never take a person that has a Sarcastic Hawke Rainbow as their avatar 100% seriously, unless otherwise stated.  Even then, be cautious.  I had a feeling you were joking AWTEW, which is why I didn't respond to some of your comments yesterday.  

[Seraphim24]

Does being against that idea or concept of demisexuality include skepticism about its inclusion among the other major sexual classifications, rather than being akin to an extreme of sexual fetishism where sexual arousal can only occur when a given condition is met? Because it does seem a bit arbitrary to say that sexual attraction that can only occur when an emotional bond is formed is a kind of sexuality, whereas, say, sexual attraction that can only occur when the object of attraction is wearing a fur suit is just a fetish. Rather than having separate terms, it seems like they both could be described as "mostly asexual except for _____." 

 

Personally I find it no more arbitrary than a division based upon gender in many respects... in fact it would almost seem more useful to classify sexualities based on their inherent character and not necessarily their objects. For example, softer or harder sexualities, disparate or concentrated.

 

For example, heterosexual and homosexual tells me a person is attracted to girls as a guy or girls as a girl, and only the same sex, etc. I know nothing about just how frequently they have sex, the number of partners, the timing and extent of the relationships, the ways in which they have sex (positions, whatever). Someone could be a homosexual poly amorous porn star, or a homosexual monogamous male who has only ever been with the one and will always be forever after.

 

Whereas Demisexual tells me the reverse, I know the person is only interested in relationships of extensive, emotional bonding that still quite frankly seems kind of Disney-esque to me. It tells me a fair bit more information, in general, although not the gender limitations.

[DomeWing333]

Personally I find it no more arbitrary than a division based upon gender in many respects... in fact it would almost seem more useful to classify sexualities based on their inherent character and not necessarily their objects. For example, softer or harder sexualities, disparate or concentrated.

 

For example, heterosexual and homosexual tells me a person is attracted to girls as a guy or girls as a girl, and only the same sex, etc. I know nothing about just how frequently they have sex, the number of partners, the timing and extent of the relationships, the ways in which they have sex (positions, whatever). Someone could be a homosexual poly amorous porn star, or a homosexual monogamous male who has only ever been with the one and will always be forever after.

 

Whereas Demisexual tells me the reverse, I know the person is only interested in relationships of extensive, emotional bonding that still quite frankly seems kind of Disney-esque to me. It tells me a fair bit more information, in general, although not the gender limitations.

I think a division based on the apparent sex of the object isn't really arbitrary. The main purpose of a sexuality descriptor word is to, as succinctly as possible, narrow down the range of people with which an individual is sexually compatible. Biological sex is one of the major ways that humans classify each other and prototypical sexual characteristics are what most of sexual attraction is based on. Describing a man as heterosexual serves as a pretty good indicator of the general kinds of characteristics he finds sexually attractive (although obviously there are individual variations). Other divisions like "demisexual/not demisexual" or "furry/not furry" exist that partially or even entirely describe some people's sexual interests, but it makes the language pretty inefficient to have to include all of these given the small size of the population for which they are useful descriptors.

[AWTEW]

This is a lesson guys.  Never take a person that has a Sarcastic Hawke Rainbow as their avatar 100% seriously, unless otherwise stated.  Even then, be cautious.  I had a feeling you were joking AWTEW, which is why I didn't respond to some of your comments yesterday.  

 

*Ding ding ging* Your feelings were 100% Correct!  If anyone is curious what the bet was it went like this:

 

'I dare you to post an anti-porn religious response,to that dudes comment"

 

'And why should I do that?"

 

'if you get an angry response from someone, with an actual citation, then I will give you $50."

 

 

sorryforthetrollguysbutfiftybucksisfiftybucks 

 

​

[DomeWing333]

*Ding ding ging* Your feelings were 100% Correct!  If anyone is curious what the bet was it went like this:

 

'I dare you to post an anti-porn religious response,to that dudes comment"

 

'And why should I do that?"

 

'if you get an angry response from someone, with an actual citation, then I will give you $50."

 

 

sorryforthetrollguysbutfiftybucksisfiftybucks 

Technically speaking, then, you shouldn't have won the bet as the anti-porn response you posted was scientific rather than religious. I can forgive religious arguments against porn all day. "Don't touch yourself because it pisses God off." Gotcha. Done. No argument from me. But as a psych major, I can't let pseudoscience and pop-psychology slide. 

[AWTEW]

Technically speaking, then, you shouldn't have won the bet as the anti-porn response you posted was scientific rather than religious. I can forgive religious arguments against porn all day. "Don't touch yourself because it pisses God off." Gotcha. Done. No argument from me. But as a psych major, I can't let pseudoscience and pop-psychology slide. 

 

Yeah, she tried to say something similar to that too, but the info  was from a religious site. So I got my fifty-bucks.

[Angry_Elcor]

That was not my intention. I apologize if it came off as such.

I was referring to the people who were denouncing demisexuality, thus being against the idea or concept. 

 

It's hard to know exactly what you mean by "denouncing demisexuality." If you are referring to people who don't believe it is a distinct form of sexuality, then I'm afraid that my position still stands. I don't care how someone arrives at their feelings for another, and I certainly don't judge people for who they love or how. But that is a completely different issue from whether I think BioWare should go out of their way to write a story for sexuality invented for a completely different role-playing system that has nothing to do with the Dragon Age universe. And is, as it is currently used, indistinguishable from how people often arrive at sexual attraction through normal social interaction with others.

[Angry_Elcor]

 

  It was a joke, read the posts above yours.

 

I read them. I stand by my interpretation, especially considering you said that you weren't joking.

 

 I was joking, and not joking at the same-time. It was too tempting not to respond to it. Plus I have a thing about porn being normalised, and it's harmful psychological affects on teenagers. Men in particular are affected by it

 

Yeah, I definitely stand by my response.

[Seraphim24]

I think a division based on the apparent sex of the object isn't really arbitrary. The main purpose of a sexuality descriptor word is to, as succinctly as possible, narrow down the range of people with which an individual is sexually compatible. Biological sex is one of the major ways that humans classify each other and prototypical sexual characteristics are what most of sexual attraction is based on. Describing a man as heterosexual serves as a pretty good indicator of the general kinds of characteristics he finds sexually attractive (although obviously there are individual variations). Other divisions like "demisexual/not demisexual" or "furry/not furry" exist that partially or even entirely describe some people's sexual interests, but it makes the language pretty inefficient to have to include all of these given the small size of the population for which they are useful descriptors.

 

Well in theory, heterosexuality or homosexuality does not even purport to limit one's sexual desires to members of the human species, again, as far as I know, only gender. I'm not trying to suggest something nefarious about either, I'm well aware most people aren't making that assumption, but there's not a lot succinct about it, to my mind.

 

Not to mention a person's sexual history or how extensive it is in different directions is I would think a strong qualifier for how people view compatibility. Obviously, gender is also one, but I still feel that information is constrained and limited in ways that suggest the overarching direction. Furry/not furry is pretty limited, that's like a box check, so I don't think that's fair to compare to demisexuality.

 

Again, I don't mean any of these comments to interfere with the ways people use heterosexuality or homosexuality as positive identifiers, that's fine, I'm just saying these were terms we were, once upon a time, given, and the division was arbitrary, and that demisexuality as an arbitrary division is pretty interesting to me.

 

It could just be my personal bias, I've grown increasingly fascinated with people's sexual histories and proclivities moreso than just their male/female preference. The fact that some people have had 50 partners in one day and someone else in 10 years 0 is kind of amazing to me.

 

Edit: I think it's only because something like "heterosexuality" tends to have a lot of built in assumptions, like, I would say people generally assume heterosexuality means monogamous, faithful, one male, one female, and a lot of other things, that terms like demisexual appear unnecessary. I'm not sure those assumptions are inherently part of the definition though.

[o Ventus]

 

Edit: I think it's only because something like "heterosexuality" tends to have a lot of built in assumptions, like, I would say people generally assume heterosexuality means monogamous, faithful, one male, one female, and a lot of other things, that terms like demisexual appear unnecessary. I'm not sure those assumptions are inherently part of the definition though.

I don't know where you live where "heterosexual" implies faithful and monogamous.

[Meave]

well demisexual and heterosexual are not mutually exclusive, for all we know next thing there gonna be thread that demands homosexual demisexual zoofil with fetish on sharp objects and cemeteries...

[Kantr]

Whats the opposite of demisexual opposite? Can you be half demisexual?

[o Ventus]

Whats the opposite of demisexual opposite? Can you be half demisexual?

The closest thing I can think of to an opposite of demisexuality would be nymphomania.

[Kantr]

The closest thing I can think of to an opposite of demisexuality would be nymphomania.

That does make sense.

[DomeWing333]

Well in theory, heterosexuality or homosexuality does not even purport to limit one's sexual desires to members of the human species, again, as far as I know, only gender. I'm not trying to suggest something nefarious about either, I'm well aware most people aren't making that assumption, but there's not a lot succinct about it, to my mind.

The language isn't operating in theory though. It's operating in practice. And in practice, I think it's a fairly safe assumption that when someone describes themselves as a heterosexual male, they're declaring their interest in prototypical human female features in a mate rather than, say, impressive plumage or a brightly colored posterior.

 

Furry/not furry is pretty limited, that's like a box check, so I don't think that's fair to compare to demisexuality.

 

How is demisexuality not a box check as well? Just as a furry's object of sexual interest would have to check off "looks like an anthropomorphic creature," a demisexual's object of sexual interest would have to check off "has an established emotional connection."

 

Whats the opposite of demisexual opposite? Can you be half demisexual?

 

Actually, I think the exact opposite of demisexual would involve de-valuing emotional connection when it comes to sexual attraction. So someone who can only be attracted to strangers and finds no sexual interest in those with close emotional bonds to them. I think Zevran was inching close to this, but ended up being more of a "normal but has intimacy issues."

[Meave]

The closest thing I can think of to an opposite of demisexuality would be nymphomania.

 

not quite right, nymphomania is opposite to asexual

 

there are only three sexualities - hetero, ****** (interesting, I can write homosexual and it won't censure it) and bi

 

and there are ways how people approach sex. It can be either slutty, normal or prude. When it's in extreme you call it either nymphomania or asexual. Demisexual is just made up nonsense which some lame ass psychologist came up with to keep his/her payroll...

[o Ventus]

 Demisexual is just made up nonsense which some lame ass psychologist came up with to keep his/her payroll...

If only it were even that.

[DirkJake]

 

 

and there are ways how people approach sex. It can be either slutty, normal or prude. When it's in extreme you call it either nymphomania or asexual. Demisexual is just made up nonsense which some lame ass psychologist came up with to keep his/her payroll...

 

Not quite though. One can be prude and has sexual attraction to others, and that does not make one asexual.