freibiergesicht:
livingdemisexually:
My sexuality is not normative. But it looks normative. My romantic interest is primarily in men and male identified people and I’m a cis woman whose appearance is pretty femme. When I spend time with the people I date, we look like a straight couple.
But sexual attraction is a whole different story for me. Visually, I prefer stereotypically feminine bodies, though ones that are different from mine. (I’m hourglass shaped, with moderately full hips, a moderately defined waist, and very large breasts. Visually, though, I find bodies with very full hips, a very small waist, and medium breasts most attractive.)
Quite honestly, I find stereotypically male bodies kind of funny looking and definitely not sexy (sorry guys!). Those are the bodies I am most likely to be sexual with, but it’s not because of physical attraction - it’s because I form romantic attractions that lead to me wanting a physical relationship in order to please that person.
Complicated, right?
That’s what demisexuality is. Complicated. I’ve never identified as queer because I look so normative. I’m cis and can easily pass as straight even though that’s not quite accurate. But my sexuality is not normative. It’s complicated and misunderstood. It’s part of the reason I’ve struggled so much with dating. Maybe queer does fit. I’m still not sure.
I think this is basically an extremely normative non-ace narrative, tbh. Or at least, this could have pretty much been written by me (without the demi stuff) when I was 25. At the time I was in a long-term romantic and sexual relationship with a man who I wasn’t physically attracted to, but I did enjoy sex with him and as a result desired sex with him. But I didn’t find “male bodies” (using the language of the OP, referring to cis male bodies) aesthetically attractive at all. I discovered in my later 20s that I did have the ability to shallowly be sexually attracted to people - including men - based just on their looks/body but that is a relatively recent development over the time I’ve been sexually active.
This shows just how much is strange in the way a lot of demisexuals/grey-aces talk about attraction.
It’s pretty normative for hetero/bi women to enjoy sex with men, particularly men they like/are in love with, without finding themselves turned on by their bodies alone. Because the mainstream elements in Western culture hypersexualize (certain types) of bodies, objectification, commodification, etc. All of us are really programmed to see women’s bodies (at least some of them) as at the very least, aesthetically pleasing, if not also inherently sexual. (Which is one reason I can be skeptical of some women who ID as bi but their only interest in women seems to be limited to finding Angelina Jolie or other such icons hot. It was a reason I’ve waffled on IDing as bisexual myself on and off for a long time. I wasn’t sure if I could separate an aesthetic/sexual attraction to women that was part of how patriarchy trains us to view women from a genuine desire on a sexual and romantic level. I’ve mostly figured that out now but I still think a lot of women uncritically take their aesthetic attraction to idealized women as a signifier of sexual orientation and I’m not really sure it is? Tangent.)
So much of demisexuality in a concept is this very….limited attempt to separate in a very literal, boring way all the weird complex things that make up “attraction”. They say you can be sexually aroused via having sex with someone but that doesn’t mean you have sexual attraction to someone, because you don’t get sexually aroused just by their body alone. That is extremely common for a lot of people to the point where separating it off as a unique way of interacting with sexuality is pretty much meaningless. And this explanation above seems to think that finding womens’ bodies asthetically pleasing someone gives one same-sex attraction even though they admit they are not romantically and thus not sexually attracted to women.
The OP’s sexuality is actually, in my experience, very normative and yet she insists it’s not. And goes one step further to imply it’s queer. There’s no winning that argument because she’ll say, “But I don’t feel normative.” Hey that’s sexuality in general? Or being human in general? Most of us don’t see ourselves as normal. Being cis and straight can still feel really fucking weird, particularly if you’re a woman, because our culture has all these unrealistic and bizarre messages about what sexuality and sexual attraction is. I used to think my sexual attractions/sexual orientation was totally bizarre and unique and special too, until I started talking really openly with a lot of other people who identified in all kinds of different ways and realized, “Wow, they’re just like me too!” So maybe the problem is not that demisexuals are unique or non-normative but that how our culture talks about sexuality is just not diverse enough to make a lot of people feel included. But the response to that shouldn’t be “Here’s this new thing and it’s totally unique” but instead a broadening of how we understand sexuality in general.
I don’t check this blog all that often, so I didn’t see your comments until now. I think you make plenty of good points, but I have a few comments/corrections:
1. I have no problem with people commenting on my writing, but I’m still a real person, not a case study. If you’re going to use my writing as an example of how you disagree with my own conception of my sexuality, please at least speak to me, rather than about me.
2. But I didn’t find “male bodies” (using the language of the OP, referring to cis male bodies) aesthetically attractive at all.
I didn’t say “male bodies.” I said “stereotypically male bodies.” I probably should have said masculine instead of male, but the fact that I did not say “cis male bodies” was deliberate. I’m not talking about bodies that were born with penises, but rather bodies that conform to cultural masculine ideals. There are certainly trans men who would be included, Buck Angel being the first person who comes to mind.
3. I don’t think demisexuality is particularly uncommon, nor do I think that identifying with the concept makes me special or unique, like you apparently did. I talk openly about sexuality with large numbers of my friends, and while some relate to my description of how attraction works for me, many more don’t. My comment that my sexuality is non-normative isn’t based solely on abstract cultural tropes about attraction.
4. I haven’t implied that I’m queer or that I should identify as queer. I simply asked a question. The answer could very well be “no.”
I have no idea if demisexual is an identity or label that will stick with me in the long run. I suspect that there will come a point where I don’t care anymore, but for now it’s a concept that has helped me feel less broken and wrong in how my sexuality works. And, yes, the problem may actually lie in how our culture glorifies immediate physical and sexual attraction, but that doesn’t immediately change how I feel and it certainly doesn’t change the experiences I’ve had.
![jewelweed:
livingdemisexually:
jewelweed:
livingdemisexually:
(Previous conversation here)
I didn’t argue with you about whether or not the term “sexuals” is inherently slut-shaming and I noted why at the bottom of my post. You don’t need to argue with me on that point. I also agreed that the wording is poor. I’m not a huge fan of AVEN in large part because they don’t do particularly well with wording, especially when it comes to demisexuality.
However.
What the original text actually says is “[people who experience primary sexual attraction] often mistake it [demisexuality] as an admirable choice rather than an innate orientation.” I don’t have control over AVENwiki, but what I’m pretty sure this sentence is actually saying is that people often see demisexuals as people who have bought into the idea that there is something wrong with sex outside marriage or a serious relationship. Not only is that untrue, but it also ascribes a huge amount of slut-shamey sex negativity to demis that doesn’t actually exist. Being held up as a paragon of a concept I don’t even believe in is fucking horrifying.
I see you chose not to respond to my comments about primary vs. secondary sexual attraction. That’s too bad because it says to me that you are actively refusing to even try to understand what demisexuality is or why it’s extremely helpful and de-isolating for many of us who identify with the term.
But hey, thanks for apologizing for the assumption that we’re all monogamous. Much appreciated.
I’m glad we agree that it is a shitty definition.
“I see you chose not to respond to my comments about primary vs. secondary sexual attraction. That’s too bad because it says to me that you are actively refusing to even try to understand what demisexuality is or why it’s extremely helpful and de-isolating for many of us who identify with the term.”
Um, what do you want me to say about your comments on primary vs. secondary sexual attraction? I’m not interested in debating it because I don’t disagree (how can I disagree with someone’s sexual orientation?) I didn’t mention it in my response because I thought it was just offered as further explanation and clarification. So…thank you for further explanation and clarification, I suppose. Not really sure what else you expect me to say.
The problem is that you say you don’t disagree with someone’s sexual orientation, but previously said that people who identify as demi have “special snowflake” syndrome. I was hoping you might rethink that comment because it’s really dismissive.
I could have worded it better, for sure, and I apologize for not using better wording—but I stand by my original intent. Which is that it’s not fair to lump non-ace people into the category of “sexual” when demisexual (and asexual) people also can be sexual beings. The creation of the “sexual” category and then designation of 2 sexual orientations outside of it smacks of “special-snowflake-ism.”
I don’t think anyone is being a “special snowflake” by identifying with their sexual identity, but I think one CAN be a “special snowflake” if they identify with the minority side of false dyad that implicitly slut-shames anyone who is not part of that minority. Which is not what identifying as demisexual or asexual does—but creation of the designation of “sexual” vs asexual-spectrum does.
But “sexual” isn’t outside the spectrum. It’s a part of the spectrum. The degree to which people experience primary sexual attraction isn’t 0%/50%/100% - there’s a huge range. I’ve been thinking about it and I do understand why the word sounds wrong - it reduces people to their sexuality and that would really bother me, too.
I’m curious, though: do you object to the term cisgender/cissexual? Often there is no term to describe the majority group, which leaves people feeling even more different because the majority is simply considered normal and default.
Do you have a suggestion that would be better than “sexual” for people who experience primary physical attraction?](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvmz52KJRU1qghfy5o1_400.png)
