What was wrong with the description of demisexuality as only experiencing secondary sexual attraction?
Most people who aren’t apart of the asexual spectrum can experience both primary and secondary sexual attraction. Asexuals cannot experience neither primary nor secondary sexual attraction. Grey-A’s can experience both but not as often.
Seeing this debate about demisexuality and if it is valid or not while people throw around subjective words like “deep emotional connection” or “love”, in my opinion, kind of keeps the debate running in place. Because one part of demisexuality matches a portion of how many people are socially conditioned to approach sex anyway, continuing to use the buzz words that culture defines as the appropriate reasons to have sex anyway kind of muddles the argument.
Just my opinion.
Edit: Note that I wasn’t talking about the use of vague terms but subjective terms. People know that sexual attraction exists and that people experience it. They might not know how to fully describe the term or all that goes into it but people understand in general what it means without needing a contrasting concept to describe it.
By the way demisexuality is described it implies that sexual attraction is only achieved within a mutual committed relationship. Which I can imagine not being necessary. How I first understood demisexuality which accommodates more than the narrow concepts and context of relationships, is with primary and secondary attraction. Someone can develop secondary attraction within or outside of a relationship.
I have a friend who is demisexual and she admits that the only time she ever felt attraction was towards one person who she was not in a committed relationship with. She had a strong sense of who he was but they didn’t have a deep emotional connection. If a deep emotional connection is required to be demisexual what is she then? Asexual with one fluke? A one shot grey-a?
I just saw a post on allosexism and its effects on those on the asexual spectrum. How there needs to be a way to describe the dynamic that does not involve asserting that sexual privilege exists or that asexuals are oppressed.
Yes, asexuals’ claims to their own sexual orientation are dismissed or ignored. Many people’s first thought is that asexuals are broken or cannot be legitimate or honest about not experiencing sexual attraction.
But, in my opinion, I don’t see a reason for taking all of that to heart, or hinging your opinions about yourself on how others accept one small fact about you, when everything is setup so it is harder for them to understand even themselves.
The idea that a heterosexual person either cannot accept or fully understand an orientation outside of their own is not a surprise when even looking at the state of sexual education, in the US at least, divorce rates, number of single parent homes, all while society states that natural state for heterosexual relationships is monogamy (sexual and social).
People have such a skewed idea of heterosexuality and how heterosexual relationships work in reality, I am not going to hold them up to the high standard of understanding asexuality.
You know it really makes no sense for some asexuals to play dumb about the motives and activities of “sexuals” while feeling they should be an unchallenged scholar on the diversity of human sexuality.
You just can’t have both. Either you are truly unaware of why people do X when on a date or why people expect or do Y at a certain point in a relationship, and you also don’t know about the complexities of the sociological and or biological components to human sexuality. OR you actually do know something about romance, sex, the many diverse motivations behind certain behaviors and you also have some insight into the complex topic of human sexuality as a whole.
You can’t do both.
Response in Thread A: “EWW. Why do all these pesky sexuals do THAT? They make no sense!”
Response in Thread B: “Well these sexuals are mainly driven by the urge to…” While smoking on their proverbial pipe while lounging in the salon.
What is the point of playing dumb? or feigning expertise or knowledge in an area that you just don’t that much know about?
I remember a quote:
Education is the progressive realization of our ignorance
- Albert Einstein
It is okay if you don’t know something. It is okay to ask questions because that is how we learn, but don’t admit ignorance but then turn around to claim knowledge just for the sake of saving face. If you really are ignorant and claim to be knowledgeable you will ultimately lose more face than if you had initially admitted that you aren’t an expert or knowledgeable in a particular topic.
If you really are knowledgeable, and just like to lower the quality level of your responses for the sake of solidarity with people who are not knowledgeable, don’t be surprised when other people just might not take you seriously.
Now it seems like there is a list or a few lists of asexual characters. Even looking at the assertions of many AVEN posters there are asexual characters EVERYWHERE, even the author or creator doesn’t realize that they have created an asexual character. This even goes into the realm of reality when people assert that historical figures are or must have been asexual.
Personally for me I think that there are layers of problems with this. While people keep on repeating, “Behavior does not equal orientation” they specifically look for certain behaviors to call characters or past historical figures asexual. They say, “There aren’t any asexual ‘traits’, we are all individuals,” however they look for asexual “cues” in others in order to add more members into the fold.
Signs one has spotted an asexual:
- Has never been married.
- Has no interest in romance of any kind.
- Oblivious to sexual or romantic advances from others.
- Oblivious to sexual or romantic context.
- Does not have or want to have children.
- Does not dress or act in a way to “invite” advances.
- Is never seen or recorded to be within a romantic relationship.
- Is never seen or recorded to be pursing a romantic relationship.
- Is never seen or perceived or recorded to participate in sexual activity (Virgin).
- Is not willing to compromise in terms of sexual activity for the sake of another.
Now for those of you who don’t know, AVEN stands for Asexuality Visibility Educational Network. It is a site created by David Jay, an asexual activist, to promote the education and visibility of asexuality. Asexuality is a sexual orientation in which is characterized as the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or lacking an inherent desire to have sexual intercourse. (Apparently, the definition is funky with some people so just bare with me.)
Now interesting enough, despite having the word “education” in the title, the site itself is not really treated as a source. The newsletter posts have not been done in years. The static side of the site just seems abandoned. However that is not to say that someone largely ignorant about the orientation can’t look at a page or two (really some stuff really doesn’t change that much) and get some common misconceptions cleared up.
However, and I am inclined to think unfortunately, the portion of the site that people take the “education” from is from the more active portion of the site, the forums.
Now I keep seeing this list of things that may prove or cause people to ponder if there really is “sexual privilege” or trying to reinforce the idea that asexuals are oppressed and therefore have paid their suffering payment to achieve the coveted status of minority. Because to be a legitimate minority you need to suffer, right?