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?

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?