Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Would one differentiate between a straight demisexual and a gay one for instance? Does demisexuality dictate anything about sexual orientation based on sex or gender?
Are demisexuals more likely to be bi/pansexual?

Edit: Also where does one draw the line between finding someone aesthetically attractive and finding someone sexually attractive?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,312 Posts
I don't think demisexuality classifies anything but the context of what it is. Then you can create a subset, and another one, and another one, until you've pigeonholed your sexuality into such a fine definition to which you'll forever be single. (Just kidding--kind of.)

Define your differences between aesthetically and sexually attractive. I'm guessing that aesthetic means you don't want to fuck them, but you find them attractive enough for . . . WHAT!? Sex with their presentation instead of their joy-toys?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrgreendots

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,312 Posts
I doubt my sexuality will be what causes my downfall
It will be your mind, like most of us who are forever alone. Given that you're still trying to define it, you never know. I prefer to try to fuck what I think's attractive, and learn what I want to fuck instead of giving more boundaries to its fuckability, but optimism is good for the blood, so you're on the right track!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporadic Aura

·
Registered
Joined
·
756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I prefer to try to fuck what I think's attractive, and learn what I want to fuck instead of giving more boundaries to its fuckability, but optimism is good for the blood, so you're on the right track!
I wasn't exactly trying to pinpoint my own sexuality I've already established I don't identify as demisexual.
In my case it's a discreapancy between theoretical fuckability vs. actual fuckability. and if it's (actual-theory)/theory x100 well then I'll be darned..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
957 Posts
Demisexual is in addition to whatever your orientation is. Like I'm a demi-heterosexual, you can be a demi-bisexual, demi-homosexual etc. I don't think demisexuality has any significant correlation with a particular orientation, though I'd be curious to see some statistics of demisexuals among hetero/gay/bi/pan/what have you.

As to your second question, imo someone is esthetically attractive when they're appealing to my eyes, I enjoy looking at them but physical contact with them wouldn't do anything for me. Physical attraction is feeling chemistry/arousal towards a person (i.e fantasizing, wanting to touch them, kiss them, all that yummy stuff), and that can only happen if I feel emotionally connected to them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,396 Posts
Not sure about the first bit, but to the last question -- the difference between finding someone aesthetically attractive and sexually attractive would probably be something like seeing a beautiful painting of someone in a museum and acknowledging that the portrait looks beautiful, but not feeling the urge to fuck it.

I guess an example with actual people could be a straight guy/girl looking at their same-sex friend and noting that they are attractive individuals, but not wanting to screw them.

Granted, there does seem to be some subclass of individuals that don't know how to look at someone and find them aesthetically pleasing without screwing them. They're probably the same men (and women too, can't forget equality!) that would fuck their own moderately-attractive kids if society/law didn't frown upon that sort of thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
Many do but there are a lot who don't specify because they are not sure.

I noticed a great deal of demisexuals don't really know either because they haven't formed any deep emotional bond with anyone or they have but they are not attracted to them.

I've come across some who admitted that even though their partners were all gender X, it's always possible for them to fall for other genders.

Even if they have bonded deeply with a person of every gender, they still wouldn't know 100% because straight people don't fall for every single person of the opposite gender, right?

So it's logical to say that a demisexual would not fall for every person they have a deep emotional bond with.


------------------

I'm mostly aromantic but my romantic side qualifies as demiromantic, romantic counterpart of demisexuality. I have only fallen for one person (my current partner) so far. He happens to be male. I've dated people of different genders in the past without feeling any attraction but they all kinda worked out in their own way. So it's possible for me to fall for other genders. I'm not gonna say I'm demi-heteroromantic cuz you never know.


------------------

To your last question. I have no idea. I don't expereince either one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,279 Posts
Are demisexuals more likely to be bi/pansexual?
I don't think so.

Also where does one draw the line between finding someone aesthetically attractive and finding someone sexually attractive?
Probably a Divine Eros vs Vulgar Eros:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_love

Though it's not just pure aesthetics. Its as if materialization of certain grace that I feel to be discovering in that individual. The beauty is not all physical, I would refer to many quotes by Audrey Hepburn who certainly was a materialization of grace.

My hypothesis would be that romantic demisexuals strongly prefer/are receptive towards Divine Eros while not as much towards Vulgar Eros. The goal therefore should be to gradually bring balance to heavenly and earthly love and unite those.
So far I have experienced wish to cuddle and kiss (and strong urge to protect), but not yet this commonly quoted "urge to get into someone's pants" despite having libido.

According to experience of @NT the DC, I would expect certain sexual people (non-demi) to start with earthly love and gradually make emotional connection (vice-versa to demisexuals).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,217 Posts
I think of demisexuality as a fancier label for people that really like hard core connection before they screw and do not get turned on sexually until that (in short-and theres lots of demographics that can relate to that).

Why on earth would that have to be a specific gender or sexual orientation?

(No I am not demisexual as I can get sexually turned on by someone I have no bond with-but I get the concept because I have still had greater bonds that meant more in life and can see how some people can be that way in wiring based on emotional comfort)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Most demisexuals I've met are panromantic (which essentially means that they will have a romantic relationship with anyone, and as a result of that, screw anyone). I suppose it would vary from demi to demi, but I've always thought that since the sexual attraction was based off of emotional connection that there wouldn't be any barriers due to gender or other irrelevant aspects of a person's body. But, human sexuality is complex so it wouldn't surprise me if there were some demisexuals with gender preferences.
 

·
King of Seduction
ENTJ
Joined
·
7,427 Posts
I don't think so.


Probably a Divine Eros vs Vulgar Eros:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_love

Though it's not just pure aesthetics. Its as if materialization of certain grace that I feel to be discovering in that individual. The beauty is not all physical, I would refer to many quotes by Audrey Hepburn who certainly was a materialization of grace.

My hypothesis would be that romantic demisexuals strongly prefer/are receptive towards Divine Eros while not as much towards Vulgar Eros. The goal therefore should be to gradually bring balance to heavenly and earthly love and unite those.
So far I have experienced wish to cuddle and kiss (and strong urge to protect), but not yet this commonly quoted "urge to get into someone's pants" despite having libido.

According to experience of @NT the DC, I would expect certain sexual people (non-demi) to start with earthly love and gradually make emotional connection (vice-versa to demisexuals).
I don't think I'd describe wanting to do naked stuff with a hot lady as earthly love lol.
I'd say it's more carnal desire which can end up with emotional connection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
You can classify demisexuality with a subset of x-romantic e.g. panromantic demisexual = someone who finds physical attraction to only be relevant once you have established an emotional connection to someone but is romantically attracted to all genders and gender expressions.

You cannot be demisexual and pansexual because both are sexualities as opposed to romantic orientations. You can experience physical attraction to someone without being romantically attracted to someone and vice versa. The latter case would be an asexual pretty much.

Fwiw, I see myself as panromantic demisexual though I feel like my sexuality and romantic attraction doesn't really fit into any real box. This one probably describes it the best though. I'm definitely not straight anyway.

I think of demisexuality as a fancier label for people that really like hard core connection before they screw and do not get turned on sexually until that (in short-and theres lots of demographics that can relate to that).

Why on earth would that have to be a specific gender or sexual orientation?

(No I am not demisexual as I can get sexually turned on by someone I have no bond with-but I get the concept because I have still had greater bonds that meant more in life and can see how some people can be that way in wiring based on emotional comfort)
Personally, it's less to do with how much a turn on there is, but whether you are honestly sexually attracted and willing to have sex without an emotional attachment established. As a demisexual I can feel that X person looks really good for example, but I wouldn't want to jump in bed with them just because of it. The distinction is essentially that a regular sexual person can have sex with anyone as long that person is attractive to them, but a demisexual and those on the more asexual scale need more before you do that. Not because you aren't comfortable having sex with a stranger though of course that can play a role, but because there's no interest for that kind of exchange to occur. You just don't want to have sex with people you don't have an emotional connection with because there is no sexual attraction, period. There's a difference between thinking someone is hot and per se feeling attracted. I can't explain it better than that. I can think someone looks really good but it doesn't mean I want to sleep with them right there. I don't really get turned on just by them looking really good.

I also want to add that I do have a preference and my preference is towards men. I used to consider myself homoromantic until I met my GF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Language is weird, especially when it comes to this "-sexual" stuff.

I just recently heard the term "demisexual," and I wondered what it could be. My knowledge of prefixes tells me it'd mean "half sexual." Huh? What I've gathered is that these people are considered "half sexual" because they're only open to connections where romance is mingled with sex. IOW they're not so loose that they're up for having sex with random strangers or other species or whatever else might technically be possible.

What about people who only have sex outside romantic relationships, or where there's no aesthetic attraction? Is that the other half of "half sexual"? If so, don't we need a way to distinguish those opposite types of demisexuals?

A couple years ago I was similarly confused by "monosexual." When I first saw that word, I assumed it referred to autoeroticism--sex by yourself, so just one person. But no--it refers to sex with just one partner (it's like "monogamy" that way).

Well, if "monosexual" means one partner, then "bisexual" ought to mean two partners--maybe my wife and my girlfriend. But no; it means being open to sex with both genders. To my mind that should be "ambisexual," since "ambi" means both. But alas, "ambisexual" means androgynous or hermaphroditic--having features of both sexes.

My confusion led me look up "metrosexual," since I had heard that term a couple times and not bothered to look it up. To my surprise, it has nothing to do with sexuality at all! It apparently just refers to a well-groomed guy who's into fashion.

I was ready to throw in the towel when I read about how "polysexual" is different from "pansexual." (I guess you're only "polysexual" if you make any exceptions at all; you have to be ready to do it with anybody, anyplace, anytime to be "pansexual.")

A friend asked me how sado-masochism fits into all this. Are some people attracted only to people who are not attracted to them? Or attracted only to people who are romantically involved with them but sexually repulsed by them? Or vice versa?

Too many options, and too much information for me! Do your own thing, but please don't create any new names.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
What about people who only have sex outside romantic relationships, or where there's no aesthetic attraction? Is that the other half of "half sexual"? If so, don't we need a way to distinguish those opposite types of demisexuals?
I think that identity would be an aromantic person who has a different sexual orientation than asexual. A friend of mine is actually an aromantic heterosexual, meaning he is sexually attracted to women but he has no interest in pursuing romantic relationships with anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
Apparently. Which is why it should be called demiROMANTIC. Not demiSEXUAL.
But they are not the same. Demisexuals can have romantic crushes without knowing their crush on a deeper level but at that point they wouldn't find their romantic crush sexually attractive.

Demiromantics don't get stereotypical romantic crushes because crushes can be fleeting like you can crush on someone you just met. They are more likely to "fall in love" after forming a deep emotional bond but they wouldn't crush on strangers or people they hardly know.

For example, I've never had romantic crushes in my entire life. After knowing my current partner for months and we were already in a relationship for a while suddenly I got this feeling that I liked them romantically and it was already a deep form of love. It was never a crush. It's like jumping straight into the deep end of the pool.

I think of demisexuality as a fancier label for people that really like hard core connection before they screw and do not get turned on sexually until that (in short-and theres lots of demographics that can relate to that).

Why on earth would that have to be a specific gender or sexual orientation?

(No I am not demisexual as I can get sexually turned on by someone I have no bond with-but I get the concept because I have still had greater bonds that meant more in life and can see how some people can be that way in wiring based on emotional comfort)
Every time I see a negative opinion about labels., I wonder why people see them in that light. Aren't everything around us labels? Our names are labels too. We use them so we can specify things. I mean if labels help people to figure themselves out, why is that a bad thing.

We call ourselves straight, gay, bi, male, female, etc. Those are all labels too. You also admitted that people like demisexuals do exist. If they are this common, the more reason to categorize it. Why don't they deserve a name for how they expereince sexual attraction?
 

·
decorum worshiper
Joined
·
8,993 Posts
I'm pretty skeptical that 'demisexual' is even an actual thing. Instead of just people putting overcomplicated labels on something that doesn't need to be labeled.

Every single person experiences attraction differently. It doesn't mean we need to create hundreds of different categories for attraction.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top