Allo yerself
.
.
.
Fucksake
12 Likes
I wasn’t denying that people have varying levels of attraction dependent on circumstance, more whether or not it required an ‘identity’ of its own (which @anon75298087 has answered really) and I guess I also had doubts about it being conflated with other sexualities (for the reasons put forward by @sarahispi and @ruffers, as well as the asexual community mentioned in OP)
Imo the thread has been interesting and informative so far and probably introduce some people to a new word/concept along with the nuances of it. Yr free to disagree, obviously.
1 Like
Really? It’s what you’ve (and this is open to other posters too) have experienced? I’m absolutely doomed if the new rule is you have to sleep with everyone immediately, fuck that.
1 Like
how did this happen?
Pretty sure ‘identities’ are sometimes treated as black boxes where no further interrogation or introspection is necessary. It’s comforting, like ‘oh I’m demisexual that’s fine that’s okay that makes sense’. But it’s not really a fixed category of thing, and it’s basically just a preference rather than an identity, if you can make a distinction (not sure now I think about it)
But then again a lot of the discourse around identities is poorly thought through, even/especially by left wing people. Identities aren’t so much a mode of being or existing (i.e. people just existing as ‘demisexuals’, or working class, or BME), as a mode of living. ‘Identity’ is inculcated at the moment of a particular set of social relations being reproduced, either through interaction between actors or through auto-affection (i.e. interaction with oneself (wahey)).
Tbh I’m not really sure how valuable it is to talk about things as if they were identities, cos the word implies a specific sort of metaphysical architecture that’s essentially Platonic (about material relations and objects being representations of an ideal or form) and thus incoherent with the post-Judith Butler understanding of gender, sexuality etc etc
Idk why i’m posting this, was just thinking out loud it’s not really worth anybody else reading it.
2 Likes
*them
(sorry)
Facebook sidebar showed me a group that my friend was in - I can’t remember the title but it made it sound like the group was about people on Tumblr engaging in absurd revisionist history. It turned out to be about poor takes on asexuality. It mostly seemed to involve people having pretty intense arguments and rightly making fun of ‘identities’ like sapiosexual (only being attracted to intelligent people) and morosexual (only being attracted to unintelligent people). I left after a few days. My friend was only in it as a favour to an asexual friend.
Well to me, demisexual is just a word someone has invented to explain that they are only sexually attracted to someone once they have a strong emotional connection. If people identify with this, what’s the problem?
It’s annoying.
What’s this about Demi Moore
What’s annoying? That people feel that way, or that they have a word to describe it?
I have no interest whatsoever in casual sex with people I have no emotional connection with. I don’t think this is anything particularly niche is it?
2 Likes
As I understand it, it’s not about casual sex, it’s about sexual attraction itself. So you might be capable of sexual attraction to people you don’t know, without wanting casual sex.
1 Like
Yeah my thoughts exactly! I know some people are comfortable having sex straight away but I don’t think it’s unusual to wait until you know each other a bit, I bloody hope not anyway!
I dated a girl who was really keen to get into bed straight away, I did not pick up on this because it’s not like she was throwing herself at me and it was completely not how I’d expected things to go so it never crossed my mind. I was not aware of it at all until she ended it and said that it was not really working for her because the physical stuff was not happening quick enough (this is within about three days of meeting). To be honest I thought this was unusual and thought huh, what are the odds of coming across someone like that, at least where the more expected roles are reversed (man wanting sex immediately, woman holding off, might be less of a surprise).
After she said that a romantic relationship wasn’t for her we did actually fool around a bit, I sort of did it because it was what she wanted and we liked each other, we were quite compatible apart from in the bedroom. But the casual thing did not work for me AT ALL. Just felt so mechanical, unspontaneous, like I was expected to perform and so I got out my tricks and she got out hers and it was just horrible. Well not horrible but I realised that sex without attachment is definitely not what I want, ever.
THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ME SO I DO NOT LIKE THERE BEING A WORD FOR IT
Dinner (and then cab home afterwards)?
Brucesexual
Good game good game
hurr
doesn’t aromatic mean smelly