Posts tagged sexuality
Posts tagged sexuality
‘Asexual characters are boring’ is writer code for ‘I am too lazy and unimaginative to come up with character conflicts that don’t revolve around sex.’
I remember reading in my human sexuality class that about 63% of Americans had a “relational” view of sexual activity( i.e. 63% of Americans believe that one should only have sex with people they love.), 19% had a “traditional” view of sexuality(they believe sex should only happen between people who are married), and 18% had a “casual” view of sexual activity(they believe that sex is always fine as long as its between consenting partners).
Basically, the pattern of only engaging in sexual activity with people one loves and has a deep connection with, is the pattern that the vast majority of Americans follow. The majority of people(at least in the USA) are technically demisexual. Why have a label that sounds like a sexual orientation, but is confusing because it actually refers to a behavior pattern as opposed to an orientation, when it is the dominant behavior pattern?
It’s not like the word cisgender, used to describe individuals that do not suffer from gender dysphoria and are comfortable in their assigned gender, because that word is necessary because it helps to reduce the othering of trans people. Rather, the label of demisexual appears to be more along the lines of the dominant group in society inventing a term that others the minority as deviant. Demisexuality as a label is problematic because it characterizes those who do not use it to describe themselves as sexually promiscuous and/or disinterested in relationships that involve emotional depth.
Terms like cisgender and neurotypical are different because, while describing the majority of people, these terms first began to be used by the minority(people who are not cisgender or neurotypical) because they describe the majority in terms that do not other the minority, whereas before their mainstream usage cisgender and neurotypical individuals were usually described as “normal”, and it doesn’t take much to see how that’s problematic. By contrast, the label “demisexuality” others the minority. and that’s why it is problematic.
Except that demisexuality has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual activity or who you have sex with.
Demisexuality describes HOW you experience sexual attraction to someone (as in, it’s only ever possible to experience said attraction to someone after spending quite a bit of time bonding with them, it’s never something that just happens upon meeting or hardly knowing someone).
Maybe that is more common than people think, but in a society where we frequently hear phrases like “I’d do them” that indicate sexual attraction upon first seeing someone/not knowing them at all, a term like demisexual can still help people who don’t ever feel that way find some solidarity.
So yeah, it has absolutely nothing to do with having sex. Your entire post is pointless & just spreads misinformation.
I don’t think there even is a word that describes someone who has sex with only people they’re in intimate relationships with =/
Tons of people have re-blogged this noting how offensive and problematic it is, especially for a blog like queersecrets which promises to protect us from hateful secrets. I mailed them yesterday explaining that this was what a lot of hate was prefaced with or started as, asking if it was really appropriate to be posted on their blog. Some handful of stuff has been posted since then and still no reply.
Unfollow. I shouldn’t have to put up with hate from a community which had promised me a space safe from that. Any aces or allies out there, I suggest you do the same. It’s not worth it.
That’s really fucking disappointing they didn’t address this at all.
I don’t find the message itself hateful but yeah, this kind of thing is exactly what breeds bigotry, or at least dismisses/neglect problems asexuals face when they arise. It should never ever have been posted on a site like this.
Fuck you queersecrets.
So my partner and I tried to start watching Psych recently, and we were really taken aback by how many, well, *straights* there were on the show. Like, the entire cast seemed to be straight! It was really alarming. But most bizarrely, it wasn’t even a big deal! The fact that all these people just *happened* to be straight wasn’t ever a plot point, and nobody’s character arc centred on their straightness. It really threatened my own homosexual sensibilities and was frankly quite offensive.
Not that there is anything wrong with being straight!
what im saying is that bisexuals, pansexual, and asexuals should all join together so we can be in the fictitious trifecta. enough people will say we’re not real and we’ll all converge together in a massive, fierce mass only spoken of in myth. dont come near us or you too will cease to exist
no one will ever convince me that this hasn’t already happened
the first time we banded together, the power and force was so great that we formed the Bermuda Triangle….. and it must be why we three appear so limitedly throughout history
we had to hide ourselves from each other or risk opening some portal to a netherworld
Here is a list of random words that have more than one definition:
In short, any argument against people using the term asexual to name a valid sexual orientation simply because it is also used to describe a specific type of reproduction is inherently bullshit.
I noticed theres no blogs dedicated to mixed orientations at all, which I think is a problem. The only time you see anyone talking about romantic/sexual orientations not matching is on asexual (“who can be of any romantic orientation”) or aromantic (“who can be of any sexual orientation”) blogs, which still excludes a lot of people who may feel torn, questioning or confused about their feelings.
So I really want to help run a blog that focuses on:
Anyone want to help me on this? Obviously I think it would be best if it was run by people with mixed orientations, but otherwise I think it’s important that moderators (right term?) have diverse experiences & identities.
For reference I’m a hetero(grey)romantic asexual cis woman (and single, white, able-bodied, neuro-atypical in her early 20s). This is something I (or anyone probably) definitely can’t/shouldn’t do alone.
P.S. - I’m thinking about calling it “ mixed-not-matched “…..really as long as it’s something that indicates non matching sexual/romantic orientations I think it should be ok
I love how people so often seem to forget that romantic attraction =/= sexual attraction. Those two are different.
A person can be homosexual but biromantic, for example.
This is important.
Please don’t ignore romantic attraction.
There really needs to be a blog dedicated to this. I’m so disappointed there doesn’t seem to be one already :(
If romantic* demisexuality were the norm, there wouldn’t be such pressure on people to demonstrate some form of sexual attraction upon early dates or early in a relationship, and it would be much more common to begin partner-relationships and have them for significant periods of time without having any sexual attraction. Sexless or nearly-sexless relationships would probably be taken much more seriously. It wouldn’t be assumed that you’d experience sexual attraction to EVERYONE with whom you have an extremely emotionally intimate bond, either.
If demisexuality were the norm, it would be rare and unexpected to experience sexual attraction to strangers or early in relationships. It would be a big surprise to have sexual attraction that early.
If demisexuality were the norm, there would probably not be a prevailing idea that sexual attraction is what makes partner-relationships different from friendships, since it would be the case that some demisexual people would just not experience sexual attraction toward every partner.
So since none of these things are the case, demisexuality is *probably* (read: definitely) not the norm.
* If aro and demiromantic demisexuality were norms, stuff would also be a lot different. But when non-demisexual people assert that demisexuality is the norm, they mean romantic demisexuality exclusively (and are also wrong in their assertion).
That’s what I hear when people mock and attack labels. No matter how little it has anything to do with them, certain types of people see or hear a word they don’t understand (like “demisexual”), immediately squawk about its uselessness, and somehow spin over to screaming “YOU’RE NOT OPPRESSED” and “YOU THINK YOU’RE A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE.”
So let me go against my usual inclinations and try to say this concisely, so you won’t lose patience with me as I try to explain this to you. I will use demisexuality as an example but expect that you can generalize.
People who use words you’re not familiar with to discuss an experience they’re having are not therefore claiming to be oppressed or even necessarily misunderstood or hurt. They’re using (and in some cases, creating) words to DISCUSS THEIR EXPERIENCE. That’s IT. You have NO REASON to ask them to stop doing this. They are not asking for your permission, or for anything from you besides being left in peace.
- When you say “WTF LOL demisexuality why do u need that ur not oppressed,” you’re suggesting that the only reason to name an experience is to claim special rights or fight terrible oppression. It’s really not difficult to understand why someone whose sexual attraction experiences don’t match the experiences we’re led to believe are normal MIGHT want to talk about it with others who have the same experiences.
- When you say “WTF LOL demisexuality people will do anything 2 seem speshul,” you’re suggesting that their orientation is about you—and about getting attention from you—not about them. By accusing them of acting out with attention-getting behavior, you’re saying speaking about their lives is all about having your eyes on them. Which, in case you haven’t noticed as you dish it out, seems to result in mocking and harassment, so why would anyone want that? Very self-centered of you, isn’t it? Just like marriage equality isn’t about wrecking anyone else’s marriage, discussing one’s experience isn’t commentary on someone else’s. Occam’s Razor suggests people talk about their experiences because connecting with others who understand is comforting, so why would you invent a muddy motive to take legitimacy away from their desire to connect? And if it so eats at your guts that they might get attention for it, why don’t you stop giving it to them?
- When you say “WTF LOL demisexuality THAT’S JUST HOW PEOPLE NORMALLY ARE,” okay, well the asexual community disagrees since in OUR experience sexual attraction to strangers is expected, is common, and is normalized, but if you really think it’s normal to be sexually attracted to someone ONLY after months or years of developing other positive feelings toward them, and even then ONLY once in a while, I’m not going to argue with you. I AM going to say “so what?” If it’s “normal,” it can still have a name to describe that specific experience. Calling oneself demisexual is in no way an attempt to divorce oneself completely from “normality” (in pursuit of “specialness,” of course).
- When you say “WTF LOL demisexuality, an unnecessary word for having sex ONLY when ur in love” or “WTF LOL demisexuality, people trying to make an orientation out of not being a slut,” you’re not even listening to the people who used the word to try to communicate with you, because you are DEFINING IT WRONG. You are making assumptions, and you are mocking a claim that the people who are using the word aren’t even making. In the case of demisexuality, they are saying they DON’T FEEL SEXUAL ATTRACTION outside the described circumstances. They are not saying they WON’T SLEEP WITH SOMEONE if these terms aren’t met, nor are they describing any system of ethics/morals, nor are they shaming people who do not experience attraction the way they do. If you are re-describing their orientation in ways that make it easier for you to mock them and call them slut-shamers or what have you, look at what you’re doing. If you have to change what they’re saying to make it ridiculous, who’s really in the wrong here?
- When you say “WTF LOL demisexuality, that’s a made-up word,” what the hell is your point? Every word was invented at some point to describe something someone needed to say, and when you start hearing it more, that kind of suggests that LOTS of people wanted a word for this experience. Who are you to LAUGH and say they should STOP because that word isn’t in a dictionary or isn’t widespread yet? Really, you’re going to tell someone the fact that they had to “make up” a word for their experience has anything to do with whether they should be talking about it?
Please stop WTF LOLing other people’s conversations about themselves. Please stop rewriting what they’re saying so you can slam them for claiming oppression, specialness, or moral positions they are NOT claiming. Please stop using the fact that you don’t relate to or understand someone else’s orientation as an excuse for making an active attempt to limit their conversations. And please stop acting like you’re the arbiter for what experiences are “serious,” “real,” “oppressive,” or “common” enough to warrant terminology.
Author’s note: I am not demisexual. I have no horse in this race. I just have no problem LISTENING TO WHAT DEMISEXUAL PEOPLE HAVE SAID ABOUT THEMSELVES and understanding/agreeing that they are experiencing something that sounds distinct enough from how most people experience it that having a word makes sense.