1942 réponses à ce sujet

[eyezonlyii]

The true problem is really the nature of the word itself. Considering the meaning of demisexual and how it really defines one's level of romance needed to feel sexual attraction as opposed to the attraction itself, there really should be a different construction. Because when it comes down to it, at least to me, you have sexual and asexual. An asexual person has no interest in sex, while a sexual person does. Demi muddies the waters because technically they do have an interest in sex, the defining criteria being on when that interest is developed.

 

Without any qualifiers, if one was to ask a demisexual person if they are ever interested in sex, or seek sexual satisfaction, wouldn't the answer be yes, thus making them sexual?

 

I feel like a hypocrite now...please forgive me

[Mihura]

 

People have a tendency to make things more complicated than they are. I'm a fan of the acronym KISS.

 

Lets say there is a guy who is only physically and romantically attracted to red-haired women. While his extreme preference for gingers might place him a bit outside the norm, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say he's heterosexual. Would we really need to create a separate subgroup of heterosexual to describe his preferences?

 

So that's sort of my issue with demisexual. Depending on how it is described it either sounds like someone who is asexual, or someone who is straight, bi, or gay who doesn't take sex lightly.

 

Actually no, the same could be said about bisexuality. If they are with a man they are straight if they are with a woman they are gay/lesbian. If that fair? not that is **** up and people should just listen to people and respect their sexuality. I take sex really lightly actually, my favorite character is Isabela for a reason. Also asexuality does not mean no libido or whatever, it can say that too of course but it is not a requisite. A lot of artists that draw porn or erotic are asexual.

Personally I only find someone desirable on the physical sense when I forge a really strong bond but that do mean anything about how I see sex. 

[Han Shot First]

Actually no, the same could be said about bisexuality. If they are with a man they are straight if they are with a woman they are gay/lesbian. If that fair? not that is **** up and people should just listen to people and respect their sexuality. 

 

Bisexual is a good example of what I mean. You can have three people who are bisexual all with slightly different preferences. One could be bisexual with a preference towards women, one bisexual with a preference towards men, and the third could have no gender preference at alll. I think the term bisexual is simple and straightforward and has all of their interests covered. And everyone knows what it means. I wouldn't see a need to break it down into subgroups that the average person wouldn't be familiar with to describe their gender preferences or lack thereof.

 

Demisexual, as Kallen describes it, fits in with how asexuality is described by asexuals.

[Mihura]

Bisexual is a good example of what I mean. You can have three people who are bisexual all with slightly different preferences. One could be bisexual with a preference towards women, one bisexual with a preference towards men, and the third could have no gender preference at alll. I think the term bisexual is simple and straightforward and has all of their interests covered. And everyone knows what it means. I wouldn't see a need to break it down into subgroups that the average person wouldn't be familiar with to describe their gender preferences or lack thereof.

 

Demisexual, as Kallen describes it, fits in with how asexuality is described by asexuals.

 

And that is fine but you sure do not call them gay/lesbian/straight depending on the person gender they feel attracted too right? It is about that person definitions even if they date only women for 10 years and than never again, they are still bisexuals. 

Asexuals could be sexual repulsed and aromantic, demi are not in any instance none of this. 

In the end of the day is about respecting other people sexualities, even if they are not talk about a lot.

[veeia]

I am a bisexual with a preference for women, but in a relationship with a man. Having a preference doesn't change bisexuality, it just further defines it.

Demisexual is not about preferences. It's about an inability to experience sexual attraction without certain conditions met. Within that category, you can further define it.

Demisexual can be grouped in an ace umbrella, or a sexual umbrella(lmfao sorry I'm a child and this made me laugh), but its distinct from both in different ways.

[Han Shot First]

Demisexual is not about preferences. It's about an inability to experience sexual attraction without certain conditions met. 

 

That sounds exactly like asexuality, as asexuals define it.

 

Do asexuals have relationships?

 

Just like anybody else, some asexual people desire relationships and some do not. An asexual person can find someone visually attractive (aesthetic attraction), be interested in someone romantically (romantic attraction) and fall in love, but these feelings do not have a sexual dimension.

 

If a relationship is sexless, isn't it just a friendship?

 

For the majority of people, sex is regarded as what defines a romantic relationship, with love and sex being closely connected. On the whole asexuals don’t connect love and sex, since they don’t experience sexual attraction. Sex is just one way of expressing romantic love.

 

Asexuality 101

[veeia]

The thing you just quoted literally says they don't experience sexual attraction, though? No one is saying ace folk don't have sexual relationships!

[Han Shot First]

The thing you just quoted literally says they don't experience sexual attraction, though? No one is saying ace folk don't have sexual relationships!

 

Asexuals can have sexual relationships. As the quoted bit notes, sex can be a way of expressing romantic love. Also...

 

 

 

Is asexual another word for celibate?

Unlike celibacy, which is a lifestyle choice, asexuality is a sexual orientation – just like homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality. Celibacy is a conscious decision not to have sex, regardless of sexual desire. Many asexuals do not consider themselves celibate, as they are giving up no more in abstaining from sex than a gay person is by abstaining from sex with someone of a different gender or a straight person is by abstaining from sex with the same gender. Furthermore, some asexual people do choose to have sex, and therefore are certainly not celibate.

 

There has only been one scientific study on asexuality and arousal, and it was only with women. The researchers found that asexual women are just as capable of physiological arousal as non-asexual women, and that asexual women were healthily aware of what was going on in their bodies (Brotto and Yule, 2010). Many asexuals experience sexual arousal. Some don’t, but then that’s true for some non-asexual people too. Although people can become aroused by finding someone sexually attractive there are many other factors that can contribute to arousal (for example: touch, or being exposed to sexual stimuli such as erotica).

[eyezonlyii]

@Han

Are you trying to disprove demisexuality? If so, then I don't think this thread is for you. Kallen created this thread as a space to air her(?) grievances and offer constructive criticism and clarity on the subject.

[Sylvianus]

What they should do in the game and romance features to make naturally the distinction between pansexual, bisexual, straight, gay ( with a character who is  shy, romantic, awkward, wants to marry first, doesn't care about love relationships or need someone close to her /him before having sex etc ) and someone who is demi-sexual and who does not feel sexual attraction at all before some conditions met ? ( If I understand the meaning, which I am not sure at all )

 

Merril never flirts first for example. Only when she is very close to hawk, she opens her heart. And she is considered bisexual. So, what would be the difference ? Except the word of god obviously, because if people who play the game can't see the difference, that's clearly something which failed. 

[veeia]

Asexuals can have sexual relationships. As the quoted bit notes, sex can be a way of expressing romantic love. Also...

 

I'm aware of that, as its what I just said. Asexuals can have sex.  The difference is that they don't experience sexual attraction.

 

I do agree that if you're here to disprove it, that's not conducive for this thread, but if you're open to trying to understand, I think it's fair to ask questions and try to come to an understanding. The problem is, you seem to be doing both because you're asking questions but when you don't quite understand the answer, you seem to be offering that as proof of its nonexistence.

[Ianamus]

I am a bisexual with a preference for women, but in a relationship with a man. Having a preference doesn't change bisexuality, it just further defines it.

Demisexual is not about preferences. It's about an inability to experience sexual attraction without certain conditions met. Within that category, you can further define it.

Demisexual can be grouped in an ace umbrella, or a sexual umbrella(lmfao sorry I'm a child and this made me laugh), but its distinct from both in different ways.

 

What about people who are attracted to one gender only but capable of becoming attracted to a member the other if they form an emotional bond to one? 

 

And where does attraction to a persons personality come into all of this? As in, just seeing someone in the street you do not find them attractive, but after spending some time with them and getting to know their personality you do? I've experienced that countless times.

[eyezonlyii]

What about people who are attracted to one gender only but capable of becoming attracted to a member the other if they form a close bond with one? 
 
And where does attraction to a persons personality come into all of this? As in, just seeing someone in the street you do not find them attractive, but after spending some time with them and getting to know their personality you do? I've experienced that countless times.

From what I understand, the first would be heterosexual, demiromantic (may have made that up)

The second sounds like a textbook demisexual *shrugs*

[Ianamus]

 

From what I understand, the first would be heterosexual, demiromantic (may have made that up)

The second sounds like a textbook demisexual *shrugs*

 

Let me rephrase the second one this way:

 

Situation 1: A straight man meets a girl he does not find physically attractive. After getting to know her personally he becomes sexually attracted to her. This is considered normal and nothing special.

 

Situation 2: An man who does not find people physically attractive meets a girl. After getting to know her personally he becomes sexually attracted to her. This is considered a completely separate sexuality and it's own unique thing.  

 

I personally don't see a difference. To me they both just seem to be attraction to someones personality, which is a fairly standard occurrence. 

[Pasquale1234]

Let me rephrase the second one this way:
 
Situation 1: A straight man meets a girl he does not find physically attractive. After getting to know her personally he becomes sexually attracted to her. This is considered normal and nothing special.
 
Situation 2: An otherwise asexual man meets a girl he obviously does not find attractive. After getting to know her personally he becomes sexually attracted to her. This is considered a completely separate sexuality and it's own unique thing.

What you're describing in Situation 2 may be a demisexual, but is not an asexual.

Asexuals do not experience sexual attraction. Period.

[Lady Nuggins]

 

 

 

Let me rephrase the second one this way:

 

Situation 1: A straight man meets a girl he does not find physically attractive. After getting to know her personally he becomes sexually attracted to her. This is considered normal and nothing special.

 

Situation 2: An otherwise asexual man meets a girl he obviously does not find attractive. After getting to know her personally he becomes sexually attracted to her. This is considered a completely separate sexuality and it's own unique thing.  

 

I personally don't see a difference. To me they both just seem to be attraction to someones personality, which is a fairly standard occurrence. 

 

 

The difference being that the straight man in situation 1 has always considered himself somebody who is attracted to women.  Discovering he is attracted to a woman he was not before changes nothing--he is still attracted to women, and so he is still straight.

 

Imagine situation 2 a little differently: a man who considered himself gay meets a girl he does not find attractive.  After getting to know her personally he becomes sexually attracted to her.  He can no longer really consider himself gay, can he?  If he has the capacity to be attracted to women under certain conditions, then he is probably bisexual (with a preference for men).  His definition of himself must change.

 

Likewise, I imagine that a man who considered himself asexual might find himself confused if he suddenly feels sexual attraction for somebody.  Maybe he finds that grey-ace is a better word for himself.  Maybe demisexual.  Either way, the label he previously believed applied to himself might no longer fit.  That is why these words are useful.

[StillBornVillain]

Video Games, where what gets your rocks off shouldnt matter.

 

But for some reason we make it matter, even thou it doesn't.

[daveliam]

Video Games, where what gets your rocks off shouldnt matter.

 

But for some reason we make it matter, even thou it doesn't.

 

WIthout a question, this statement is untrue.  If it were true, then we wouldn't have thirty years of hypersexualized females in video games.

[Ianamus]

The difference being that the straight man in situation 1 has always considered himself somebody who is attracted to women.  Discovering he is attracted to a woman he was not before changes nothing--he is still attracted to women, and so he is still straight.

 

Imagine situation 2 a little differently: a man who considered himself gay meets a girl he does not find attractive.  After getting to know her personally he becomes sexually attracted to her.  He can no longer really consider himself gay, can he?  If he has the capacity to be attracted to women under certain conditions, then he is probably bisexual (with a preference for men).  His definition of himself must change.

 

Likewise, I imagine that a man who considered himself asexual might find himself confused if he suddenly feels sexual attraction for somebody.  Maybe he finds that grey-ace is a better word for himself.  Maybe demisexual.  Either way, the label he previously believed applied to himself might no longer fit.  That is why these words are useful.

 

This post makes a lot of sense. I like your explanation. 

 

I guess that as a bisexual person asexuality and demisexuality just bewilder me in general, being almost the complete opposite of what I experience myself. 

[eyezonlyii]

WIthout a question, this statement is untrue.  If it were untrue, then we wouldn't have thirty years of hypersexualized females in video games.

Let us not forget, that men too are hypersexualized, just in a way that reinforces how masculine and manly they are. 

[Ianamus]

Let us not forget, that men too are hypersexualized, just in a way that reinforces how masculine and manly they are. 

 

It depends how you view sexualization, really. As somebody who is attracted to men I find that there is a big difference between the hyper-muscular, manly appearance that I see a lot of people claim is "sexualizing men" and media that I find is actually portraying the male characters in a sexual manner. 

 

It's a bit of a weighty, complicated topic, but I'll try to summarize it with two images: 

 

Here is an image showing muscular, manly male characters, but not sexualizing them:

 

 

Below are images that I feel are actually sexualizing male characters: 

 

[eyezonlyii]

It depends how you view sexualization, really. As somebody who is attracted to men I find that there is a big difference between the hyper-muscular, manly appearance that I see a lot of people claim is "sexualizing men" and media that I find is actually portraying the male characters in a sexual manner. 

 

It's a bit of a weighty, complicated topic, but I'll try to summarize it with two images: 

 

Here is an image showing muscular, manly male characters, but not sexualizing them:

 

 

Below are images that I feel are actually sexualizing male characters: 

 

I get what you're saying, but it's the idea of sexual reinforcement that I'm talking about. Because masculinity on our society has a whole is viewed better than femininity (You throw like a GIRL!), then every image of males shown to young men and women is about perpetuating the secondary sexual characteristics (bulging muscles, power stances, positions within communities, attitude, etc.) We're only just now getting to the point where our bodies are being positioned the same way that women's bodies have been for years.

[Ianamus]

I get what you're saying, but it's the idea of sexual reinforcement that I'm talking about. Because masculinity on our society has a whole is viewed better than femininity (You throw like a GIRL!), then every image of males shown to young men and women is about perpetuating the secondary sexual characteristics (bulging muscles, power stances, positions within communities, attitude, etc.) We're only just now getting to the point where our bodies are being positioned the same way that women's bodies have been for years.

 

Images of men and women shown to young people are very rarely sexualized, in media aimed at children at least, but are very feminized and masculinised. Male characters tend to be in active poses and posses powerful physiques and female characters tend to be in passive poses. It is bad, but it's not quite the same thing as sexualization.

 

Male characters in games do tend to be very masculinised, but are rarely sexualized in games aimed at a male audience. And I do think there's a big difference. Female characters on the other hand are often both feminized and sexualized. 

[Grieving Natashina]

I think a few are confusing the over-idealization of buff men with the sexualization that happens to mainly female characters, although the former is almost as bad.  Sexualizing would be more of turning someone into purely an object of desire, or merely a plot point.   I don't think I need to say anything more, as I'm pretty sure everyone is with it familiar by now. That's terrible, awful, disgusting and happens to female characters far too often.  Plus, I think some of the straight/bi men, the supposed audience for that, are very sick of it.

 

The over-idealization of a particular type of guy, in this case much like the pics above me, tend to push those ideals to the point of being unhealthy.  It leaves little room for any other body types or such to be shown.   Tragically, as a result of this, eating disorders, especially anorexia, is one the rise among teen boys. This idealization falls in line with the sexualization oftentimes; you have the over-sexualizated woman with the over-idealizated man. 

 

That kind of sexist BS towards both men and women hurts everyone.  It makes me a little sad.  

 

And I'll quit derailing Kallen's thread.  Sorry, went off on a bit of a tangent.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The difference being that the straight man in situation 1 has always considered himself somebody who is attracted to women.  Discovering he is attracted to a woman he was not before changes nothing--he is still attracted to women, and so he is still straight.

 

Imagine situation 2 a little differently: a man who considered himself gay meets a girl he does not find attractive.  After getting to know her personally he becomes sexually attracted to her.  He can no longer really consider himself gay, can he?  If he has the capacity to be attracted to women under certain conditions, then he is probably bisexual (with a preference for men).  His definition of himself must change.

 

Likewise, I imagine that a man who considered himself asexual might find himself confused if he suddenly feels sexual attraction for somebody.  Maybe he finds that grey-ace is a better word for himself.  Maybe demisexual.  Either way, the label he previously believed applied to himself might no longer fit.  That is why these words are useful.

Very well said, Lady Nuggins. Thank you.