1942 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

Wait? I'm genuinely confused. Why is monogamy comin up now? Can't a demisexual person be non-monogamous? Those aren't synonymous concepts.

 

I'm sure this is another point of argumentation, I'm sure Hanako's standard would be different from mine, mine is monogamous, sexually interested in one other person, only desire one other person, not interested in casual sex or casual sexual activity etc etc.

 

It and how demisexuality is discussed (form a connection only after emotional bond) are pretty much closely connected for me, because I only form a connection only after a period of time I am essentially monogamous kind of thing. I doubt I am capable of anything else because of the limitations imposed by a demisexual kind of perspective.

[Pasquale1234]

I'm sorry I didn't understand you, you are saying you know LGBT people (or just anyone of a different orientation) who are monogamous and devoted and only want/desire a single solitary sexual relationship with someone else and so on yes?

No, that isn't what I said. At all.

I said that sexual orientation and sexual behavior are not the same thing.

People do not always act on their attractions.

People are sometimes pressured into sexual liaisons they don't really want.

[Seraphim24]

No, that isn't what I said. At all.

I said that sexual orientation and sexual behavior are not the same thing.

 

Well if they aren't the same thing, it seems reasonable to assume that for any given orientation a reasonable number of behaviors are to be expected? For example, homosexual and promiscuous or homosexual and monogamous. Straight and promiscuous, straight and monogamous.

 

That's kind of how I always assumed it worked to be honest, that they weren't really related in that sense, but I just suggested that and you denied under the same point which is strange to say the least.

 

People do not always act on their attractions.

People are sometimes pressured into sexual liaisons they don't really want.

 

This part is BS though. I've already described several times I like literally can't have sex I don't want, it's impossible. I couldn't be pressured into say casual sex, because I basically can't have it.

[Pasquale1234]

Well if they aren't the same thing, it seems reasonable to assume that for any given orientation a reasonable number of behaviors are to be expected? For example, homosexual and promiscuous or homosexual and monogamous. Straight and promiscuous, straight and monogamous.
 
That's kind of how I always assumed it worked to be honest, that they weren't really related in that sense, but I just suggested that and you denied under the same point which is strange to say the least.

But you keep conflating demisexuality with things like chastity and monogamy.
 

This part is BS though. I've already described several times I like literally can't have sex I don't want, it's impossible. I couldn't be pressured into say casual sex, because I basically can't have it.

Sorry, I've not read through all available data about Kefka's personal sex life.

I thought we were discussing demisexuality in general, and how it might be reflected in Bioware games.

...why do I bother?

[Seraphim24]

But you keep conflating demisexuality with things like chastity and monogamy.
 

 

I don't think anyone truly has a monopoly on the definition at this stage.

 

In my opinion, you shouldn't be able to claim to be "demisexual" without being essentially monogamous. I already said, I doubt Hanako agrees, it's just a term someone threw out there ultimately. Perhaps someone will simply invent another term that reflects that at some point.

 

Sorry, I've not read through all available data about Kefka's personal sex life.

I thought we were discussing demisexuality in general, and how it might be reflected in Bioware games.

 

We were, you brought up random people being pressured into sex they don't really want, I don't think that's common at all, except in perhaps extreme cases like rape etc.

 

The vast majority of the time (as long as both parties (or.. more) are basically voluntarily doing something sexually) it's because they want it that way.

[Pasquale1234]

I don't think anyone truly has a monopoly on the definition at this stage.
 
In my opinion, you shouldn't be able to claim to be "demisexual" without being essentially monogamous. I already said, I doubt Hanako agrees, it's just a term someone threw out there ultimately. Perhaps someone will simply invent another term that reflects that at some point.

That is how every term comes into existence. For terminology to be useful, it needs a commonly accepted definition.

I believe Hanako has already asked you to quit. The accepted description / definition was presented in the first post. You are only muddying the waters, and damaging the identity these people have found.

If you feel the need to define a sexual orientation, I suggest you create your own Kefkasexuality wikia.

@ Hanako: I apologize for having stirred it. I had hoped that a few clear, simple, definitive statements might be helpful.

[Seraphim24]

That is how every term comes into existence. For terminology to be useful, it needs a commonly accepted definition.

I believe Hanako has already asked you to quit. The accepted description / definition was presented in the first post. You are only muddying the waters, and damaging the identity these people have found.

If you feel the need to define a sexual orientation, I suggest you create your own Kefkasexuality wikia.

@ Hanako: I apologize for having stirred it. I had hoped that a few clear, simple, definitive statements might be helpful.

 

Blah blah blah you have decent amounts of sex, want to still identify as demisexual, lets just not beat around this anymore, same as a few others. Perhaps I'd be less defensive about it if I didn't see an equal number of people who didn't strike me that way (such as Hanako, who most assuredly does not) or probably also Esper or others I've come across at various points. I'm not saying promiscuous exactly, but if monogamy is a sticking point it seems likely to assume something like that.

 

Eh.. sorry that was unkind, I am confused about this perhaps so are you... I just want to find a way to harmonize different points of view that doesn't really lose the substance of an idea or something like that.

 

I don't intend to damage this identity that people have found, in fact, I don't want to hurt anyone but I simply must ask why we are taking something that implies a rather low level of sexual activity and allowing it to be a high degree of sexual activity.

 

I also must say I don't mean to impugn you either on any of these grounds, you want to have lots of sex ok, but I see that as somewhat outside the scope of the definition....

[daveliam]

I guess, for me, if the idea of demisexuality is that a person only feels sexual desire after establishing a strong emotional bond, then I don't see why that has to include monogamy or chastity.  Why can't a person only feel sexual desire after establishing a strong emotional bond and have that happen to two different people at the same time?  I'm not saying that I think it would be common, but I don't see why it can't be that way for some people. 

[Seraphim24]

I guess, for me, if the idea of demisexuality is that a person only feels sexual desire after establishing a strong emotional bond, then I don't see why that has to include monogamy or chastity.  Why can't a person only feel sexual desire after establishing a strong emotional bond and have that happen to two different people at the same time?  I'm not saying that I think it would be common, but I don't see why it can't be that way for some people. 

 

Generally speaking I think you can have depth or diversity but not both, it's just the laws of physics and time that make that clear. In a given day you spent all your time with someone else for some reason, you can have a strong bond with one person or a moderate bond with two people, IMO. Why? Because there are only 24 hours in a day. Although, if a day had 48 hours it wouldn't even change the equation, you could have an extremely strong bond with one person or a strong bond with two people.

 

I'm not going to claim this is "inherently" a part of demisexuality (contrary to other suggestions), I would just think it would frequently coincide the more "demisexual" a person is the more likely they would be monogamous.

 

Actually you can see how this played out in DA:I in a different context, they spent so much time and energy on 9 different companions to appeal to diversity (and I'm not saying that's bad)

 

But imagine if they had focused on a handful of people (like TW), then you would of gotten more depth of interaction and detail.

[daveliam]

Generally speaking I think you can have depth or diversity but not both, it's just the laws of physics and time that make that clear. In a given day you spent all your time with someone else for some reason, you can have a strong bond with one person or a moderate bond with two people, IMO. Why? Because there are only 24 hours in a day. Although, if a day had 48 hours it wouldn't even change the equation, you could have an extremely strong bond with one person or a strong bond with two people.

 

I'm not going to claim this is "inherently" a part of demisexuality (contrary to other suggestions), I would just think it would frequently coincide the more "demisexual" a person is the more likely they would be monogamous.

 

Actually you can see how this played out in DA:I in a different context, they spent so much time and energy on 9 different companions to appeal to diversity (and I'm not saying that's bad)

 

But imagine if they had focused on a handful of people (like TW), then you would of gotten more depth of interaction and detail.

 

This makes sense to me as an explanation for your own personal views on it.  I still have some issues wrapping my head around this concept so I ask a lot of clarifying questions.

[Pasquale1234]

Blah blah blah you have decent amounts of sex, want to still identify as demisexual, lets just not beat around this anymore, same as a few others. Perhaps I'd be less defensive about it if I didn't see an equal number of people who didn't strike me that way (such as Hanako, who most assuredly does not) or probably also Esper or others I've come across at various points. I'm not saying promiscuous exactly, but if monogamy is a sticking point it seems likely to assume something like that.

Assuming that "you" in the first sentence is specifically directed at me - you are certainly creating a lot of fiction about me.

I've not identified my sexual orientation, nor have I provided any information whatsoever about my sex life - or lack thereof.

I'm trying to help you understand orientation versus behavior. I've made quite a few simple, clear statements to that effect. It is a lot easier for most people to understand and discuss sexuality when they have a common language with which to discuss it.

Conflating sexual orientation labels with terms used to describe the frequency or number of partners one has really clouds and confuses the issues.

[Lady Artifice]

Every time I think it can't get any more ridiculous. It does. 

 

Now it's an actual claim that because one individual says they "can't" be pressured into sex, it's B.S. that someone could. Despite the fact that there are laws in place to protect people from being coerced into intercourse, and laws in place to prosecute people who have coerced someone in that way. 

 

Assuming that "you" in the first sentence is specifically directed at me - you are certainly creating a lot of fiction about me.

I've not identified my sexual orientation, nor have I provided any information whatsoever about my sex life - or lack thereof.

I'm trying to help you understand orientation versus behavior. I've made quite a few simple, clear statements to that effect. It is a lot easier for most people to understand and discuss sexuality when they have a common language with which to discuss it.

Conflating sexual orientation labels with terms used to describe the frequency or number of partners one has really clouds and confuses the issues.

 

 

 

That poster keeps assuming that everyone who posts in any thread must be claiming to be of the demographic that thread focuses on, despite their own presence in those threads as a detractor. It will continually go around in circles, especially if they keep being granted a spotlight. They've done the same thing in several other threads, and actually asked why they keep encountering the same posters in a variety of different topics, demanding to know how they can call themselves "all of these things," without any irony at all. 

 

It's just going to keep cycling. 

[drummerchick]

...

In fact I generally assume most LGBT relationships are of the monogamous and relatively chaste type, or at least are behaviorally not really any different than the typical straight relationship on average.

 

...

I'm sorry, I just wanted to jump into this hot mess and reiterate a point Kefka touched on that is so often lost on people (probably not anyone in here, cause ya'll are pretty excellent). 

Non-heterosexual relationships are Exactly like heterosexual relationships, except (obviously) the genitals involved. People are people and love is love. There's a whole merry-go-round of harmful stereotypes, but no sexual orientation is inherently more monogamous or promiscuous than another.  

Back to lurking.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Generally speaking I think you can have depth or diversity but not both, it's just the laws of physics and time that make that clear. In a given day you spent all your time with someone else for some reason, you can have a strong bond with one person or a moderate bond with two people, IMO. Why? Because there are only 24 hours in a day. Although, if a day had 48 hours it wouldn't even change the equation, you could have an extremely strong bond with one person or a strong bond with two people.

This is inaccurate. There is not a quantitative value to things like love. 

 

For example, a mother wouldn't have a strong bond with one child or a moderate bond with two children. The mother would have a very strong bond with both children. 

[esper]

edit- for unworkable qoute

[esper]

Blah blah blah you have decent amounts of sex, want to still identify as demisexual, lets just not beat around this anymore, same as a few others. Perhaps I'd be less defensive about it if I didn't see an equal number of people who didn't strike me that way (such as Hanako, who most assuredly does not) or probably also Esper or others I've come across at various points. I'm not saying promiscuous exactly, but if monogamy is a sticking point it seems likely to assume something like that.

 

 

(I got the qoutes to work!!)

 

I don't even know how I got involved in this, but I do not want to identify as demi, since I am ace (which I have stated repeadtly). And I most assurdely don't have a decent amount of sex, since I don't have sex at all. If you are going to drag me into the conversation at least get it right.

 

 

I'm not going to claim this is "inherently" a part of demisexuality (contrary to other suggestions), I would just think it would frequently coincide the more "demisexual" a person is the more likely they would be monogamous.

 

Actually you can see how this played out in DA:I in a different context, they spent so much time and energy on 9 different companions to appeal to diversity (and I'm not saying that's bad)

 

But imagine if they had focused on a handful of people (like TW), then you would of gotten more depth of interaction and detail.

 

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Do I personally think that the majority of demi sexuals is monogamous? Yes, if nothing else than for practical reasons, but that doesn't demand that a demi sexual is monogomous. If a demisexual person happens to be poly-romantic then it doesn't change their demi sexuality.

 

I... don't understand your example. But then again I don't think that the witcher's characters have any depth and I quite enjoyed the companions in da:I (and all da games in fact) and would not trade them for anything in the witcher at all. And what has it to do with sexuality?

 

Are you try to say that a minority group can only accept a very strigent group of people who conform to their perception? Because that is how I understand what you are saying and it is not a pretty thing to imply.

 

.

[Seraphim24]

Every time I think it can't get any more ridiculous. It does. 

 

Now it's an actual claim that because one individual says they "can't" be pressured into sex, it's B.S. that someone could. Despite the fact that there are laws in place to protect people from being coerced into intercourse, and laws in place to prosecute people who have coerced someone in that way. 

 

 

 

 

That poster keeps assuming that everyone who posts in any thread must be claiming to be of the demographic that thread focuses on, despite their own presence in those threads as a detractor. It will continually go around in circles, especially if they keep being granted a spotlight. They've done the same thing in several other threads, and actually asked why they keep encountering the same posters in a variety of different topics, demanding to know how they can call themselves "all of these things," without any irony at all. 

 

It's just going to keep cycling. 

 

That's why I said "extreme cases like rape," I didn't say coercion was never involved in sex, I said that as long as something is voluntary for the parties involved though it's because the person wanted whatever kind of sexual activity they ultimately engaged in at that time.

 

I'm sorry, I just wanted to jump into this hot mess and reiterate a point Kefka touched on that is so often lost on people (probably not anyone in here, cause ya'll are pretty excellent). 

Non-heterosexual relationships are Exactly like heterosexual relationships, except (obviously) the genitals involved. People are people and love is love. There's a whole merry-go-round of harmful stereotypes, but no sexual orientation is inherently more monogamous or promiscuous than another.  

Back to lurking.

 

Ok

 

This is inaccurate. There is not a quantitative value to things like love. 

 

For example, a mother wouldn't have a strong bond with one child or a moderate bond with two children. The mother would have a very strong bond with both children. 

 

Not a parent, can't say.

 

(I got the qoutes to work!!)

 

I don't even know how I got involved in this, but I do not want to identify as demi, since I am ace (which I have stated repeadtly). And I most assurdely don't have a decent amount of sex, since I don't have sex at all. If you are going to drag me into the conversation at least get it right.

 

 

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Do I personally think that the majority of demi sexuals is monogamous? Yes, if nothing else than for practical reasons, but that doesn't demand that a demi sexual is monogomous. If a demisexual person happens to be poly-romantic then it doesn't change their demi sexuality.

 

I... don't understand your example. But then again I don't think that the witcher's characters have any depth and I quite enjoyed the companions in da:I (and all da games in fact) and would not trade them for anything in the witcher at all. And what has it to do with sexuality?

 

Are you try to say that a minority group can only accept a very strigent group of people who conform to their perception? Because that is how I understand what you are saying and it is not a pretty thing to imply.

 

I think exclusivity is quite beautiful actually, but obviously that's just me. Anyway you got dragged into this because my point was you don't have (well, any) sex.

 

How useful is demisexual as a label about emotional connection if you can have 100 sexual partners or 1? It's not. It becomes meaningless.

 

It seems to me the reason there are so many labels these days is because none of them provide anyone with a sense of relief or understanding, they are mostly so vaguely defined and have so few requirements that people just attach to them almost at random or on a whim.

 

If you just point to a person's actual sexual history well suddenly the answers become clear, it doesn't have to be demisexual, but say someone identifies as bisexual, you go, well have you ever slept with the same sex? Have you experienced orgasm in that context? Or did you just think you got turned on by a picture of the same sex somewhere kinda maybe sorta?

[In Exile]

How useful is demisexual as a label about emotional connection if you can have 100 sexual partners or 1? It's not. It becomes meaningless.

 

Because it captures the idea of sexual attraction occurring only where there's an emotional connection. It's an idea about attraction - how many people you're attracted to is kind of besides the point. For example, despite being all about "teh sex", the range of people (and the number of traits, etc.) I'm attracted to is pretty narrow. I have really particular types, so I'm just really picky. It's who I am. But it would be nonsense, for example, to label me as asexual because I'm not into a lot of people. 

[esper]

I think exclusivity is quite beautiful actually, but obviously that's just me. Anyway you got dragged into this because my point was you don't have (well, any) sex.

 

How useful is demisexual as a label about emotional connection if you can have 100 sexual partners or 1? It's not. It becomes meaningless.

 

It seems to me the reason there are so many labels these days is because none of them provide anyone with a sense of relief or understanding, they are mostly so vaguely defined and have so few requirements that people just attach to them almost at random or on a whim.

 

If you just point to a person's actual sexual history well suddenly the answers become clear, it doesn't have to be demisexual, but say someone identifies as bisexual, you go, well have you ever slept with the same sex? Have you experienced orgasm in that context? Or did you just think you got turned on by a picture of the same sex somewhere kinda maybe sorta?

 

All right I am glad to hear at least something got through to you. As I read your former post, I read it as you accussing both me and Hanoko of being promescious and in the same breath implying that we couldn't be demi-sexual. Misunderstanding cleared up.

 

Exclusity is your personal choice and you are quite free to find it beutiful. It is your right.  You cannot however press your choice down on another group.

 

I seriously doubt that any poly - anything has a 100 different partners at least at the same time. But it is quite possible to deeply love 2 or 3 person at a time.

 

You cannot read people's orientation out of their sexual history. First of people lies you won't get the truth out with an answer. Secondly a gay man can sleep with a woman and vie versa. They have historically done so. A person can be in denial and not want to acknowlegde what they are. Or they can simply not know the truth because they have a low enough libido and/or romatic attraction that they never discover what they are.

 

Then we have bi sexuals who might have a preference and just decide that they are going to ignore their attraction to one gender.

 

As Hanako tried to say behavior =/= orientation =/= sexual drift. 

 

Edit think of it like this (simplified):

 

Orientation who you are attracted to.

 

Aro/Ace/demi/sexual - how you are attracted to people.

 

Mono - poly - how many you are attracted to at once

[Seraphim24]

All right I am glad to hear at least something got through to you. As I read your former post, I read it as you accussing both me and Hanoko of being promescious and in the same breath implying that we couldn't be demi-sexual. Misunderstanding cleared up.

 

Exclusity is your personal choice and you are quite free to find it beutiful. It is your right.  You cannot however press your choice down on another group.

 

I seriously doubt that any poly - anything has a 100 different partners at least at the same time. But it is quite possible to deeply love 2 or 3 person at a time.

 

You cannot read people's orientation out of their sexual history. First of people lies you won't get the truth out with an answer. Secondly a gay man can sleep with a woman and vie versa. They have historically done so. A person can be in denial and not want to acknowlegde what they are. Or they can simply not know the truth because they have a low enough libido and/or romatic attraction that they never discover what they are.

 

Then we have bi sexuals who might have a preference and just decide that they are going to ignore their attraction to one gender.

 

As Hanako tried to say behavior =/= orientation =/= sexual drift. 

 

Edit think of it like this (simplified):

 

Orientation who you are attracted to.

 

Aro/Ace/demi/sexual - how you are attracted to people.

 

Mono - poly - how many you are attracted to at once

 

No I said clearly you and Hanako weren't actually, in fact, you were both the motivation for that comment.  Regardless of how many details people want to share about their personal lives it's pretty obvious most of the time where people fall on the spectrum, people that have a few solitary relationships look/act/feel completely different than those that don't. People can try to lie, sure.

 

I don't judge these people in the sense you say, I do however wish to find a place where people of a certain mindset can agree to find themselves unjudged by others... perhaps it is a small but important difference...

[Pasquale1234]

That's why I said "extreme cases like rape," I didn't say coercion was never involved in sex, I said that as long as something is voluntary for the parties involved though it's because the person wanted whatever kind of sexual activity they ultimately engaged in at that time.

No matter how many times you say it, it still isn't true.

Plenty of people voluntarily engage in sex they don't really want, and for a variety of reasons:

-- Relationship maintenance. Partners in an ongoing relationship don't always want sex at the same time or with the same frequency, so someone's gotta give.

-- Social pressure. It's huge, and I've already cited examples of GLBT people who married someone of the opposite sex prior to coming out.
 

How useful is demisexual as a label about emotional connection if you can have 100 sexual partners or 1? It's not. It becomes meaningless.

It's just as useful as any other orientation label in that it describes attractions, not behaviors.

You continue to conflate orientation with behavior / activity. They are completely different concepts.
 

It seems to me the reason there are so many labels these days is because none of them provide anyone with a sense of relief or understanding, they are mostly so vaguely defined and have so few requirements that people just attach to them almost at random or on a whim.

Orientation labels are just labels that attempt to describe the preponderance of one's attractions (again, not behaviors).
 

If you just point to a person's actual sexual history well suddenly the answers become clear, it doesn't have to be demisexual, but say someone identifies as bisexual, you go, well have you ever slept with the same sex? Have you experienced orgasm in that context? Or did you just think you got turned on by a picture of the same sex somewhere kinda maybe sorta?

It doesn't matter. Because, once again, orientation describes attractions, not activity.

Also, labels are self-selected. Sexual attractions matter; history is irrelevant.

[Pasquale1234]

No I said clearly you and Hanako weren't actually, in fact, you were both the motivation for that comment.  Regardless of how many details people want to share about their personal lives it's pretty obvious most of the time where people fall on the spectrum, people that have a few solitary relationships look/act/feel completely different than those that don't. People can try to lie, sure.

You also suggested that I obviously have "decent" amounts of sex (whatever that means).

It's a good thing I don't judge / condemn / look down on people based on their sexual activity. If I did, I would have been very insulted.

Your presumption that you know something about anyone's sex life based on a few internet posts is... in tin foil hat territory.

[Grieving Natashina]

Last night, I had a couple of good friends come over for some homemade hotwings, some mead and a little D&D.  One of them doesn't play many video games anymore, and the other doesn't even own a console.  I was chatting with them, and the BSN came up.  They don't play BioWare games, and only vaguely know about the romances.

 

I told them about this thread, and explained demisexuality to them.  You know how long that took?  About 30 seconds.

 

"So, you know asexuality right?  Folks without a sex drive at all?"  <They nod>

 

"Well, demisexuality is a lot like that, only there is a sex drive if they are in deep and committed relationship.  They don't get turned on causally like most other people do, but they do for the person they love."

 

"Oh, cool, that makes sense."

 

One of the gentlemen is about my age (36 in the fall,) and the stepfather of 5 (yes 5) teenage stepsons.  He barely has time to himself, much less surf about different sexualities, so this demisexuality thing was completely new to him.  The other was 40, a lifelong bachelor, not a video gamer, no kids, isn't on Twitter or Tumblr,  and he had never heard of this before either.  Both are straight men, and you see can the reaction.  Or rather, lack of overreaction.

 

There was no, "Omgerd, this isn't real!"  There was no, "Those folks are lying to themselves."  There was no assumptions, other than the basic description that I gave.   30 seconds, with two men that had never heard about the concept before.  

 

Demisexuality isn't that complicated of a concept.  The word itself sounds unusual, but it doesn't take about 20 pages and months to explain.  Most posters that have read this thread and asked polite questions from the ace/demi posters have understood this, even if they don't support it.  However, anyone that's continually and deliberately missing the point for the better part of three months is just being a jerk.

 

@Kefka

 

Why don't you stop over analyzing the habits of posters, please?  You spend more time thinking about and debating about the sexual identity of the forum posters than I do about my own sexual identity.  You go out of your way to hit up threads that "you don't understand" to needle and bicker with the posters in there.  You make a lot of comments stating and suggesting that every person that supports Hana's idea must be demisexual, or that demisexuals are "lying" to themselves in some fashion.   In one of your attempts to make snide comments in the past, you decided to make the most ridiculous statement you could about my sexuality (and a couple of others) based on our posting experiences and conversation preferences on a video game forum.

 

I'm going to give you some honest and real advice.  I don't say this to be snarky, sarcastic, rude or backhanded in anyway.   

 

Shut down your computer/laptop/tablet/phone.  Go outside if it's a nice day.  Grab a book or a comic, but leave the electronic leashes at home.  Take a week or so and just get offline for a bit.  Spend some time with your friends outside of the net.  I'm not trying to say, "Go away from the forums" because sometimes you do have some good and fun ideas.  I am saying that maybe too much internet in general is catching up here.

 

I took a month back in January.  I wasn't online at all, and I didn't spend much time in my office unless my husband had a link or a video he wanted to show me on his computer.  I caught up on a lot of books, listened to a lot of music I had meant to sooner and finally finished FFIV: After Years.  

 

I was getting way too wrapped up in the internet and gaming culture drama in general, and it did me a lot of good to just unplug.  You should do the same and then come back.

[Abelas Forever!]

I have been thinking that it propably isn't very hard to write a character that is demisexual. I guess the difficulty in writing that kind of character is that people might not know that the character is demisexual unless that character says that he/ she is demisexual and explains that to the player because the way the character migh behave could mean that the character is shy or or modest for example. People also might not know about demisexuality so they might interpret the behaviour of that character in some other way.  However because the devs have announced the sexualities of the LIs then this is not actually a problem.

 

Anyway I support demisexual LI because I find that kind of love story interesting.

[In Exile]

I was getting way too wrapped up in the internet and gaming culture drama in general, and it did me a lot of good to just unplug.  You should do the same and then come back.

 

For the sake of my own sanity I've realized that running in the opposite direction of any topic discussing gaming culture (or internet culture) is the Only Choice ™. Sadly, I do not do it as often as I should do it. 

 

I have been thinking that it propably isn't very hard to write a character that is demisexual. I guess the difficulty in writing that kind of character is that people might not know that the character is demisexual unless that character says that he/ she is demisexual and explains that to the player because the way the character migh behave could mean that the character is shy or or modest for example. People also might not know about demisexuality so they might interpret the behaviour of that character in some other way.  However because the devs have announced the sexualities of the LIs then this is not actually a problem.

 

Anyway I support demisexual LI because I find that kind of love story interesting.

 

I think all that's required is an a storyline that can culminate in sex but not until there's (a perceived) meaningful emotional connection on the part of the LI, with some conversation about this very much a matter of attract "as you'd understand it".