Well, this thread went in a lot of different directions..... and here I am stuck on emotional bond.
Anyway, what about this, demisexuals basically don't engage in casual sex? I'd say that's a fair assessment? I think? As in, sex shortly after or even before properly meeting someone and getting to know them better?
Anyway, what about this, demisexuals basically don't engage in casual sex? I'd say that's a fair assessment? I think? As in, sex shortly after or even before properly meeting someone and getting to know them better?
I feel like BioWare already beat us to the punch.
Did he say they were "regular bisexuals"? Curious.
I've never seen anything from Gaider that would eliminate the possibility that Merrill is demisexual and bisexual. In fact I've never seen them discuss anything about the DA 2 LI's placement on a 'romantic spectrum'. Every comment that I've seen them make is in regards to their sexual orientation. Having never seen the blog post that Hana referred to, I can't say for sure, but in the GaymerX panel, he's certainly only referring to orientation which would mean that Merrill could still be considered demisexual. Frankly, I also haven't seen anything to suggest that Josephine couldn't be viewed as demisexual as well.
"Asexuality" isn't an orientation. Not in the same way as hetero- or homosexuality. If you're romantically involved with someone and you're having sex with them, then you're sexually attracted to them. If you're romantically involved with anyone, you are by definition sexually attracted to them, at least a little bit. That attraction is one of the things that drew you to whoever it is your with. When you look at someone and determine that they're "hot", that's sexual attraction. Assuming you aren't working as a prostitute (you as a general label, not *you* you), you're either an idiot or an a**hole for having sex with someone you don't think is attractive. Or very drunk.
That is very naive. People have relationships for all sorts of reasons. I have certainly had 'romantic' relationships with people I was not sexually attracted to.
That is very naive. People have relationships for all sorts of reasons. I have certainly had 'romantic' relationships with people I was not sexually attracted to.
...Sexual attraction is kinda very vital for a romantic relationship.
(to Helvescient) Not necessarily. Romantical relationships that are non-sexual are possible and do exist. They are rarely heard about but they do exist sometimes because of celibacy between its parties and sometimes because one or both of the parties have no interest in sexual relations. A lack of sexual attraction does not equivalent no attraction at all just as a lack of sexual intimacy does not equivalent no intimacy at all.
One way to look at it is this:
Romantic attraction = wanting to date someone.
Sexual attraction = wanting to sleep with someone.
I imagine for most people, those two go hand in hand. They want to go out on dates with a person they like and they want to sleep with them - maybe on the first date, maybe on the seventh, or maybe after marriage (it doesn't matter when they do it, just that the desire to do it is there).
But its not like that for everyone.
For example, some people may be interested in sleeping with an individual they find attractive, but have no interest in an actual on-going relationship with them (e.g. one-night-stands). In this case, they are sexually attracted to the person but not romantically attracted to them.
On the flip side, some people may be interested in going out on dates with someone they like, but have no interest in actually taking them home and sleeping with them (not after any number of dates). In this case, they are romantically attracted to the person but not sexually attracted to them.
Again, that's just my personal interpretation of it, and I may be well off the mark here.
(to Helvescient) Not necessarily. Romantical relationships that are non-sexual are possible and do exist. They are rarely heard about but they do exist sometimes because of celibacy between its parties and sometimes because one or both of the parties have no interest in sexual relations. A lack of sexual attraction does not equivalent no attraction at all just as a lack of sexual intimacy does not equivalent no intimacy at all.
I've never seen a relationship work where the partners were not attracted to each other. That almost always leads to cheating, either unaware cheating or at the worst accepted cheating.
(to Helvescient) The partners are attracted to each other, just not sexually. Like I said, they are rare and not for everybody but they do exist and without infidelity on the side of any of the partners.
I don't know if I would like it if my relationship was build solely on sexual attraction, that one would be one very tricky relationship to be in.
Isn't it a common feature of Bioware romances that they basically don't go anywhere until you've earned a certain amount of approval/intimacy with a certain character? How is that different from demisexuality?
One thing I want to know:
Is there being a distinction made between sexual attraction and sexual arousal? I'm just trying to wrap my head around the lack of a physiological response to sexually exciting stimuli due to a lack of emotional connection. Not saying that it can't be true, but still find it hard to believe.
(to eyezonlyli) I'm not terribly familar with demisexuality but I imaging it might be somewhat akin to asexuality in that some can see the aesthetical beauty of a person but not have a physiological response to it. With demisexuality, it might be that feelings of a romantic nature translates into physiological respond.
Bah, maybe I'm muddling it.
...Sexual attraction is kinda very vital for a romantic relationship.
I disagree. Look at all of Stephen Hawking's wives. They loved him for his mind.
One thing I want to know:
Is there being a distinction made between sexual attraction and sexual arousal? I'm just trying to wrap my head around the lack of a physiological response to sexually exciting stimuli due to a lack of emotional connection. Not saying that it can't be true, but still find it hard to believe.
Because you're a dude...
I disagree. Look at all of Stephen Hawking's wives. They loved him for his mind.
I don't think sexual attraction is the only part of a relationship, but I do think it's a big part. If two partners don't want to have sexual relations with one another, then as I said, more often than not infidelity will occur. No one wants to end up being Anthony Burch, do they?
(to Helvescient) And if neither of the parties has an interest in sexual matters?
I don't think sexual attraction is the only part of a relationship, but I do think it's a big part. If two partners don't want to have sexual relations with one another, then as I said, more often than not infidelity will occur. No one wants to end up being Anthony Burch, do they?
What if both parties have a medically verifiable lack of sexual drive? A permanent problem with their libido or a hormone imbalance?
Do you think two such people might still be able to feel emotional attachment?
I don't think sexual attraction is the only part of a relationship, but I do think it's a big part. If two partners don't want to have sexual relations with one another, then as I said, more often than not infidelity will occur. No one wants to end up being Anthony Burch, do they?
Depends on the sexual drive of each person and their understand of morality in such instances.
What if both parties have a medically verifiable lack of sexual drive? A permanent problem with their libido or a hormone imbalance?
Do you think two such people might still be able to feel emotional attachment?
If they have no physical ability to feel libido, then yes, but you're going way out in the left field here. A medical lack of any libido whatsoever (not just a hormone deficiency, but a TOTAL lack of all sex drive) is very, very rare. It might work, but I've never seen it and have only once or twice heard of it. However, reproductive desires being fulfilled is a big part of relationships at the deepest levels, so in the end it won't be as fulfilling, I wouldn't think.
Depends on the sexual drive of each person and their understand of morality in such instances.
See above.
I don't think sexual attraction is the only part of a relationship, but I do think it's a big part. If two partners don't want to have sexual relations with one another, then as I said, more often than not infidelity will occur. No one wants to end up being Anthony Burch, do they?
I have to be away from my smoopy smoopums (no sex) because of work and I never even look at another human. Of course, I'm pretty obsessed and will be loving it up when I'm home, but no sex doesn't mean infidelity, necessarily.
Some people believe in soulmates and all that biz.
I didn't used to. I was cynical about it, but if something happened to him and we couldn't have sex I would still love and be faithful to him for the rest of our life together. I love him not his organ. I couldn't be without him. I just couldn't. He makes me believe in poetry.
I have to be away from my smoopy smoopums (no sex) because of work and I never even look at another human. Of course, I'm pretty obsessed and will be loving it up when I'm home, but no sex doesn't mean infidelity, necessarily.
Some people believe in soulmates and all that biz.
I didn't used to. I was cynical about it, but if something happened to him and we couldn't have sex I would still love and be faithful to him for the rest of our life together. I love him not his organ. I couldn't be without him. I just couldn't. He makes me believe in poetry.
I see through your statements of sentimentality, you screaming bear you. You won't fool me with your "twu wuuuv" proclamations. 
I have to be away from my smoopy smoopums (no sex) because of work and I never even look at another human. Of course, I'm pretty obsessed and will be loving it up when I'm home, but no sex doesn't mean infidelity, necessarily.
Some people believe in soulmates and all that biz.
I didn't used to. I was cynical about it, but if something happened to him and we couldn't have sex I would still love and be faithful to him for the rest of our life together. I love him not his organ. I couldn't be without him. I just couldn't. He makes me believe in poetry.
Well yeah, but there's a big difference between "Not always being able to have sex" and "Never having sex nor any physical attraction to your partner". Of course not everyone's a sex hound who wants it constantly, but that's not what I meant. I was referring to above points stating that a relationship can work without any physical attraction and/or sexual intimacy ever, which I don't really believe.
If they have no physical ability to feel libido, then yes, but you're going way out in the left field here. A medical lack of any libido whatsoever (not just a hormone deficiency, but a TOTAL lack of all sex drive) is very, very rare. It might work, but I've never seen it and have only once or twice heard of it. However, reproductive desires being fulfilled is a big part of relationships at the deepest levels, so in the end it won't be as fulfilling, I wouldn't think.
Sexual drive tend to decline in many people as they grow older, it's not that uncommon. And generally a long lasting relationship won't crumble over a period of stress induced lack of libido, since most people don't form relationship entirely on the sexual basis and without any compromise. Perfect sexual compatibility is a unicorn to most people and not only in terms of libido, but also in terms of particular wants.
(to Helvescient) Ah, we'll have to agree to disagree then as I am as unlikely to change my disposition as you seem likely to change yours. I do not believe a relationship requires a sexual connection to work and I believe I've seen enough evidence to support that belief whereas you do and believe you've seen enough evidence to support your belief.
It is sometimes just the way it is.
Retour en haut