>>378680
Yeah, demisexuality to me sounds more like an indicator of one's place on the "purely physical" versus "purely emotion" scale of romantice/sexuality which I would place perpendicular or parallel to what normal people consider as a sexual orientation.

>>378685
Even that seems like it's overthinking it. To me it sounds like demisexuals just aren't into casual sex. That's not really a big enough thing to require a special label or even an axis for it. It's like coming up with a label for people who prefer a full bush or people who prefer a clean-shaven pubis. It's purely a matter of taste with no real impact on who you are or how society views you. It's not even really a significant indicator of who you can date or what your love life is going to be like.

>More made up words about fucking
aaaaaaa

>>378685
>scale of romantice/sexuality
Oh look more things that don't exist.

>>378700
Some people are generally all about no-hangups casual sex and friends-without-benefits relationships, others would never even conceive of doing that and would still be content with a romantic relationship that doesn't have a lot of sex in it at all, and most want a relationship with some mix of sex and emotional connection in it. Sure it doesn't need fake labels like demisexuality, but it's still a valid spectrum, just like some bisexuals like girls/boys more than the other while others like both equally.

>>378693
>>378700
>>378703
Again, just because you don't feel this way doesn't mean others don't. It is a real thing. The rest is spot-on. Some just don't feel romantic towards anyone and want to fuck without any emotional connection, some are really romantic and have no intention of having sex. It has to be the way they're wired, because there's people who have no mental scarring or trauma related to sex, and still don't want to have sex.

>>378705

If your label doesn't describe any behavior or experience except for that which already falls into the spectrum of 'normal' experience, it doesn't mean jack fucking shit. Demisexuality 'exists' but it's not noteworthy, and giving it that label is just a sad attempt to get some Queer Street Cred.

>>378703
What do you call the type of sexuality where a person exclusively has sex with your mother? Because I think I have that one.

>>378707
Nobody's trying to get cred from anyone, they're just trying to find a term to explain how their sex drive works. Even the people who work really well together romantically can be driven apart if one person has a hyper sex drive and their partner doesn't.

>>378719
Demisexuality doesn't need to exist as a term for that though. While the boink/love scale exists there's no need for it to have a special set of vocabulary, just awareness that not everybody is equally gungho about hopping into bed with someone because they like them. It used to be the norm in the old days and didn't need any fancy nomenclature. Only with today's hypersexualized culture and media do people feel the need to get reactionary by using such terms as Demisexuality to say "sorry I don't feel like having sex with you unless we're super serious", but it's still a superfluous term because most people once they exit the phase of life that's all about SEXSEXSEX would say the same thing too.

>>378719

Except for the part where the term used is clearly designed to imply queerness, and emerged out of tumblr super special snowflake culture. It's not a useful term and it is not needed.

So, what would you guys call it if a person relies on this sort of lengthy relationship-building as an actual sexual orientation? As in, this person is NEVER sexually attracted to anyone that they are not in a close relationship with; and this person is ALWAYS attracted to others once a close relationship is developed with them, regardless of that person's gender, race, age, relation, etc.

I suppose one might call this a version of pansexuality, but it's not exactly the same. A pansexual (ignoring the typical "will fuck anything, at anytime, anywhere" negative stereotype) is capable of being attracted to any sort of person, but it's still usually an immediate response. A pansexual does not have to develop a close relationship before the attraction will exist; it exists almost immediately.

Again, this has nothing to do with the person in question's behavior, only attraction.


>maybe not the kind of terms most of us would find useful, but if it helps some people in their communication about romantic and sexual matters then shit, who are we to stop them

Also this. Why are many of you so fanatically upset about the word and using what are essentially strawmen and ad hominem tactics to attack its validity? It's just a WORD. If I went in here insisting that I decided a type of pen was hereforth to be known as a frindle, I don't think everyone would be so up in arms about it.

(I think it's because defining that only certain persons are that way implies that you are not that way. This is insulting because you think demisexuality refers to people who are not easy, and you don't want to be defined-by-omission as being the type of person who has casual sex. Again, if you think the definition of demisexuality has ANYTHING TO DO with behavior, or whether or not a person prefers casual sex, you still have not understood it. How can you attack the definition of a word if you don't understand it?)

Demisexuality - A term used to describe someone unable to talk to the opposite sex without first being friendzoned, after which they develop romantic feelings.

>>378725

I wouldn't call them anything. That is not a thing that needs to be distinguished from the normal spectrum of sexuality.

Also if you insisted on calling a pen a frindle, we would all laugh at you - much like we are doing at so-called 'demisexuals'

>>378725
>if a person relies on this sort of lengthy relationship-building as an actual sexual orientation
UMMMMMM that is not what sexual orientation means. At all.

And here, let me lay it out for you:
- Someone who only desires sex when they are in a committed relationship is just someone who is at the extreme end of monogamy.
- Someone who easily falls in love with friends but does not desire sex with strangers is someone who just requires an emotional component in a relationship.
- Someone who is attracted to anyone regardless of gender is pansexual.
- If you find that you are only attracted to friends of the opposite sex and do not feel aroused by strangers, you are a completely fucking average straight person. You are not queer. You are not some form of asexual. You can call yourself "demisexual," resting yourself pretentiously on the borders of asexuality and queerness, but you're still a normal straight person, sorry. You're like those dumbfucks who think that because BSDM is an "alternative lifestyle," all BSDM practitioners get to call themselves queer even if they are strictly attracted to the opposite sex.
- "Demisexuality" DOES sidle itself up to the queer community, despite not having anything to do with sexual orientation or gender identity, and the vast majority of "demisexuals" are straight. That's blatantly appropriative, attention-seeking bullshit, a bid by straight kids to be seen as counter-culture special snowflakes. So fuck this.

>dated a self-described demi
>could find people aesthetically beautiful and sexy without any desire to have sex with said people
>strong emotional attachment required
>during our peak she was very interested in activities
>during the end of our relationship she had no interest in such activities
>still don't believe there was a need for the term demisexual
>likely a term that would describe a huge amount of the human population
>only emphasizes that we need a better education about our emotions and sexuality than we get from school and culture
>stop talking about bullshit as if you know things as a fact jesus christ you guys i don't think anyone here is an expert

>>378725
Whatever people think about the whole "demisexual" thing, people need to stop treating it as a fucking orientation like homosexuality, bisexuality, and so on. Orientation refers to shit like gender/biological sex/whatever. "Demisexuality" has nothing to do with the junk in your pants/secondary sexual characteristics/gender roles whatsoever.

There is no reason to laugh at anyone for anything, and if you still believe that, you are a fucking asshole.

I can't speak for anyone but me, and I am only well-versed in my own sexuality. I'm pansexual, and I don't want to have sex with anyone I'm not very comfortable and in love with. If you want to call that demisexuality, fine, if you insist it doesn't exist, just don't give people hell about it just because that's not how your brain works.

This is why we need better sex education. I'm sick of explaining that different people have different sex drives or interests and that nobody's identical.

>>378738

I'm not even sure who you're supposed to be talking to here.

>>378738
We're all assholes on some level. Even you. One day, you will find someone so ridiculous that the only alternative is to laugh at them.
Because they will otherwise continue to think there's nothing wrong or absurd about their thoughts or actions, and actions and sentiments can be wrong.

>There is no reason to laugh at anyone for anything

>>378738
From reading this and other posts I've come to the conclusion that "Demisexuals" are what us old folks refer to when we say "romantic". ie someone who doesn't do casual sex

So we have words for your feelings already, you don't have to make up new ones. Pick up a dictionary.

>>378744
They don't want to be associated with something familiar and known. They want their feelings validated in the same field that heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual are. A romantic can help being a romantic. A demisexual, to the definitions of some, are as incapable of being anything but demisexuals, as a hetero is incapable of being bi or gay.
To be a romantic is a choice, something made due to preference. They want the validation that demisexual is not a choice, it's just the way they're wired.

>>378742
>>378740
No. I'm sorry, I will be polite even if it kills me.

>>378744
It's not like that. It's when you physically can't find someone sexually attractive, even if you want to. I've been in love with people and yet it took months, more than they wanted to wait, to be ready for sex.

>>378748
>It's not like that. It's when you physically can't find someone sexually attractive, even if you want to. I've been in love with people and yet it took months, more than they wanted to wait, to be ready for sex.
Okay, but the message you're not getting here is: that's not special. It does not make you a member of an "alternative sexuality." It does not affect how society treats you, it does not affect who you can date, and it is not at all uncommon. It is not an achievement that is deserving of recognition, and it does not earn you the right to march in any parades. You are just a normal person who is less attracted to tits or ass than you are to people.

>>378748
That's just being asexual (asexuals are capable of having romantic/emotional attachments, they just don't care about the sex).

>>378748
>>378746
Being a romantic is not a choice for a lot of people either, we just can't feel comfortable with one night stands or flighty relations.

>I've been in love with people and yet it took months, more than they wanted to wait, to be ready for sex.
That's still called a romantic, we already have this word.
Before I met my better half I've made love 8 times in my entire life, all with people I was very very close with. It took my wife a year after we started dating before we started sleeping together, and another year before she agreed to marry me.
Just because the entire media is pushing a culture in the west that's based on casual sex doesn't mean that's normal. Hell, more than 3/4 of the world DON'T live in the west, they live in places where it takes time before people decide to have sex. I see films and shows where actors bemoan going a day or two without sex (I'm looking at you Sex in the City) as if that's somehow abnormal, well it isn't. People who have sex with strangers that often are called sluts.

tl;dr being a romantic isn't special, it's normal, being otherwise is weird.

>>378760
Man, you had it going right up until the end there.

>>378761
>>378760
That really is the definition of slut though. Somebody who doesn't care for or doesn't like emotional attachment in sexual relationships. We don't really have a positive word for it because we've historically demonised sex and people who unabashedly like having sex often. Also we hate women and especially women who like sex so most of them are coloured a bit femininely. It'd be nice if people could reclaim some of them or find some positive descriptors--like we've done for "queer" for example--but that hasn't gone too well. Probably because are culture is still pathologically afraid of sex.

Note that we tend to do this with minorities. We have a bunch of demeaning, rude words to describe them and a few neutral or positive words to describe what the majority is like, because it is automatically assumed everyone you meet is part of the majority until you're proven otherwise. We have more descriptors for things that are unusual. We have less for things that are extremely common/normal/boring. We don't need a lot of descriptors for normal.

Taking those patterns into account

"demisexuality" is honestly just another word for "normal." Why hasn't it existed before? Why don't we have a really good, natural-sounding word (as opposed to the pseudo-Latin shitheap we've got) to describe this behaviour already? Because it's something that describes a majority of human beings. Its opposite are the weird minority that we actually discriminate against, and so we call them sluts and whores and hussies and tramps and whatever. make sense?

>>378769
You're buying into the madonna/whore dichotomy, which is a dangerous and parochial way of thinking. While there's no call for feeling unusual for not being into casual sex, people shouldn't be ostracized for enjoying and engaging in casual sex, either. Yes, the ones who engage in that sort of behavior and don't use protection probably deserve to be mocked for being idiots, and the ones who lead people on into thinking they're getting into a relationship when they're just going to be one-night stands deserve to be judged harshly for using people and toying with other people's emotions, the ones who take the necessary precautions and just enjoy having fun with other people who like having the same sort of fun they have aren't doing anything wrong.

>>378770
Yeah I've never really been a fan of the term slut. Or rather, its application as a "everybody that has more sex than I do" insult.

>>378770
I'm talking about language you nitwit. This whole discussion has been about language and whether demisexual is a useful and relevant term. (It's totally not.) I only touched vaguely on why people who prefer casual sex may be ostracised and debased, and I did not make any value judgements. I certainly did not incite the madonna/whore dichotomy, but that sure is a prevalent thing isn't it. Wow I sure did address that in the post you didn't read.

Think about things before you go on a tangent about stuff I never said next time, ok.

>>378760
That's the thing, though. My ex said it wasn't normal. You have sex on a near-constant basis with him or he considers you as not loving him, and he doesn't want to speak with you anymore. This has happened to me twice with two different guys. That's why I thought I wasn't normal.

>>378774
You are normal, you have just been dating jerks whose sex drive is incompatible with yours.

>>378774

He was just an asshole pressuring you for sex, sad to say.

Ironically enough, the repressed, monogamous attitude toward sex and sexuality is IN NO WAY the natural human attitude. The Western attitude toward sexuality is actually closest to pure as you're going to find.

If you look at tribes of barely-civilized folks living on isolated islands and in rainforests, untainted by missionaries telling them that sex is bad and needs to be controlled, they're basically like bonobos. Everyone has sex with whomever they want to at any time, even when they're children. Having multiple orgasms a day is an expectation. They still have long-term partners and preferred partners, and only do it with friends (tough to run into strangers in such a place) so it's not a free-for-all orgy, but the point is there isn't any restriction. Given the harsh environment that humans evolved in, lots of reproduction makes sense. Given the importance of same-gender social bonding, lots of homosexuality also makes sense. All civilization is made up of is repression of natural urges. Some, like repressing murder is good; murder is a negative thing. Some, like repressing sex is not so good; sex is a positive thing.

Underneath all the bullshit, we're probably all bisexual or pansexual in a way. Most well-adjusted people, straight or gay, have joked about that one person they would "go gay" or "go straight" for, usually a popular actor or whatever. Given the chance, if there were no negative societal repercussions, wouldn't you try it at least once with the other gender than your usual preference? What are you afraid of? That it would CHANGE you...?

The only reason we feel the need to label ourselves is so we can divide into little groups where everyone knows what the rest wants, because everything sexual is repressed and concealed and not talked about in polite conversations. A guy going around wearing a label that says "I'm straight" is more comfortable than him having to rebuff advances by fags, telling them "Sorry, I don't like penis." Ideally, we would all be able to do just that. There wouldn't be any need for labels or sexual orientation, just a "yes" or "no" whenever the topic arises would suffice. Depending on your mood, you might swing for something different. Why not?

And to everyone who says they have a low sex-drive, it might be because you're compartmentalizing things too much. Most people think it's not "sex" unless it's intercourse, ie: anal/vaginal penetration. Humans are typically very sexual all the time, but it can manifest in less-obvious ways, even just with "romantic" cuddling or touching. Unless you're the type that basically never wants to be touched at all by your partner, if you want to be held and kiss and stuff like that every day (but just don't want to FUCK) then you could still have a high sex-drive, just of a different sort.

Basically, everyone is special, therefore nobody is. All labels are as meaningless as all the rest. We should just ditch the nonsense and (safely) have sex with whomever we want. If you want it today, find someone who wants it today. If you want it in three months, find someone else who is comfortable waiting that long. If you want men, get with men. If you want busty, black, leather-wearing women, find those and get to work.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a world that allows such things — at least not yet. Because of this, labels are useful because we want to be comfortable in our own little groups. The more labels the better! Myself, I am primarily a pedoandrosexual aromantic, secondarily a demisexual androromantic (well, at least when it comes to humans). And if you're like that, also, the two of us can have our own little group and say "fuck you" to the rest of the world, together.

>>378788
Citation please? I am not exactly doubting that your first paragraph is true but I haven't heard of this, and I would like to know which tribes you're talking about, because the ones I know of aren't like that.

As an aside, it's a mistake to think that tribal societies are always more primitive than the western world, and a mistake to assume that humans are more derived than cousin species. They may not have the technology that we do, but their culture has not been stagnant since they were first isolated. It is extremely possible that the sexual attitudes of whatever tribe you're talking about is just as divergent--or even moreso--as the modern sexual attitudes in North America from the "original" ones.

>And to everyone who says they have a low sex-drive, it might be because you're compartmentalizing things too much. Most people think it's not "sex" unless it's intercourse, ie: anal/vaginal penetration.
No. You kind of know when you have a low sex drive. It means you don't get turned on by things very much.

As a person whose sex drive is pretty much nonexistent, I think of pretty much anything done with another participant that will give you an orgasm as sex, so.

>The more labels the better! Myself, I am primarily a pedoandrosexual aromantic, secondarily a demisexual androromantic (well, at least when it comes to humans).
help i can't tell if this is a joke or not

>>378791
I think his understanding of it is a little off. High amounts of sex with random people is kind of a relatively recent thing in the history books. High amounts of sex with a single partner was the norm during the expanditive, exploratory years before the whole world was mapped. This was in part to ensure survivability; when 3 out of 4 kids died due to measles, you wanted to have 5. Regardless, pregnancy is one of the most dangerous "natural" processes a woman can go through. There are so many ways that either the baby or the woman could encounter complications and die.

Fortunately medical science has come quite a bit farther in the the past 100 or so years. Pregnancy is still dangerous but the risk factor is reduced significantly due to access to modern medical facilities and contraceptives. Records of fidelity, such as court or church records, would suggest that infidelity is probably as old as man. However, only recently, through medical advancement, has the possibility of a much higher degree of partners become possible.

That said, it is anomalous. Pure "sexual freedom", especially for women, has always carried a very high degree of risk. That risk is lessened now but still very high, and to be a "slut", to be someone who sleeps with a lot of people freely, well, that's always dangerous. Not undo-able, but there's a very large degree of risk for both male and female partners, moreso for women.

Though I will say, I was advised to be direct in my intent to avoid the period that demisexuality speaks of. The misunderstanding of intent leads to that because when someone approaches you with romantic intent, but pretends to be your friend, they set themselves up for romantic feelings that they eventually feel are unrepaid when you start going out with someone you're actually interested in. With that in mind, it is better to lay your intentions on the table and rip the bandaid off sooner rather than later, so to speak, rather than pretend a platitude you do not mean. But that timeframe seems like it would fall short of demisexualitys' needs.

>>378769
>>378770
>>378771
> We don't really have a positive word for it
Slut isn't a negative term, it's just a word that describes someone who has sex purely for pleasure. That's their choice and no one polite should really put them down for it.
Whore also isn't a negative term, it's just describes someone who has sex for favors or material wealth.

As long as you don't use these words with malice, people will understand.

>>378774
Well your ex was an immature jackknob who pushed you into sex. I don't see why you have to think you're abnormal from a test pool of 3. It's true, you'll have to try a bit harder in the West, but you can find a guy who likes you for you and not for sex.

>>378788
>Ironically enough, the repressed, monogamous attitude toward sex and sexuality is IN NO WAY the natural human attitude. The Western attitude toward sexuality is actually closest to pure as you're going to find.
If by "pure" and "natural" you mean atavistic and uncivilized.

By that logic, being able to write is also not the natural human attitude.
hinthintyou best stop writing

>>378827
>As long as you don't use these words with malice, people will understand.
"Slut" is as much a pejorative as "stupid" is: perhaps it could be used in a neutral fashion, but I've yet to hear it used as such and never expect it to be used as such. Certainly it's never used in a non-sarcastic positive fashion. (Also, "slut" is a term used for someone who has sex with tons of people regardless of pleasure, unless your definition is UK English or something.)

"Whore" is simply an offensive term for "prostitute" no matter which way you look at it, a sexist slur.

So, no, no one will understand when you use those terms.

>>378832
Are you talking about rape? People who are forced into sex they don't want aren't sluts.

>"Whore"
>a sexist slur.
Hold on, what? Both guys and girls can be whores.

Only one sexist here is your brain for only applying the word to one sex.

Whore is only derogatory because its illegal, if prostitution becomes legalized it'll just become a slang word for a profession.

Like cop is slang for policeman.

I'm just hiding this thread now.

>>378841
Prostitution is legal here, and whore is still a derogatory term. It's rarely used to describe actual sex workers and it's never used with pleasant implications. It's more like calling a police officer a pig, not a cop.

>>378839
What the fuck? No. We've been using that word for as long as it has existed to degrade women for enjoying sex. That's sexist. It's also used as a derogatory word for sex workers, who are usually female, and pretty much always part of a low class of people in society. That's also sexist. We tack on a modifier if we want to talk about a man who does the same, and we call him a manwhore or gigolo which don't carry the same degree of negative connotations and we pretty much never use them. That's sexist. Do not defend this word.

We don't have any positive words for people who just like casual sex, but they get a lot of these type of things lobbed at them, especially if they're women. Do you not see anything wrong with this?

>>378850
>We've
Who the hell is we? It's certainly not me, I've never ever used that as a putdown or in any way insultingly.

>>378851
Maybe you've never intended it insultingly, but I assure you you've made people feel insulted by using it. But people like you, who insist that they're allowed to use derogatory terms because their motives for using them are different from everyone else, rarely care much about how you make other people feel when you talk that way. It's about BEING right, not about doing WHAT's right.

>>378853
Have you taken your pills today?

>>378853
>It's about BEING right, not about doing WHAT's right.
You're slightly insane aren't you....

This has gone a bit off track. Also, auto-sage has been hit (or would have in a post or three) so I'm going to call this thread to an end. If someone wants to make a follow-up thread about the topic, go ahead--for the most part this thread worked out well, it's just the nature of threads to derail more the longer they get.

(But no more discussion about pro/con use of slut/whore/etc., because it's just one guy using a different dictionary than everyone else.)