:looks up “demisexual”:
Jesus Christ. Does EVERYONE have the be the specialest of all snowflakes?
:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
I am SO mortified :o
:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
Way to not read the thread, JRD – go back to sleep!
:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
Demisexuality isn’t uncommon, just knowledge of the term itself is I guess.
Sounds very strongly like special snowflake syndrome to me.
And to claim to be an actual sexual orientation? OMG. If that’s the case then I must have all kinds of yet-to-be-coined sexual orientations.
It’s a word for someone’s sexual tendencies. Anyone of any orientation can be demisexual.
Didn’t you say you’re like a heterosexual demisexual transexual or something? If that’s not a special snowflake I can’t even dream of what might be.
Wonder what the word would be for the polar opposite - only being attracted if it’s a stranger/there are no strings attached whatsoever. Doublesexual ? Oversexual ? Sexuale With Cheese ?
The thread ASKED about how people respond to a photo of a naked person, and I explained why I voted for “never aroused”. I just do not understand how you can object to that.
Personally I’m only attracted to transexual demisexual strangers, so if anyone knows the word for that please let me know so I can give myself the most special of all labels.
I literally cannot conceive of why you seem to object to there being a word for a kind of sexual attraction.
The simple fact is that within certain groups, subcultures, fields of study, hobbyist societies, terminology evolves to meet the needs of the people within it. Creating a word to use in place of wordy explanations just makes conversation easier. There are asexual communities out there and within them exist words to simplify discussion, for example someone can be asexual but panromantic, asexual and aromantic, asexual except for people you fall in love with - aka demisexual. See? Having a word for these concepts makes them faster and that is all they’re for, not being “special”.
Normally I would only identify myself as heterosexual when asked, because the conditions for me to become sexually attracted aren’t relevant to what gender it happens with. In this thread we were asked if a photo of a naked person arouses us, and I said no, and explained why, using a perfectly cromulent word. WHAT is wrong with that?
Nothing whatsoever. This is a weird thing for anyone to pick on you about.
I’m actually quite tickled to learn a new word! “Demisexual” would have trimmed whole paragraphs out of some of my old polyamory threads, when people couldn’t understand why I don’t screw any attractive person that leers at me. I think it’s entirely common (especially for women, but also some men) for some of us to not be sexually attracted until we’re emotionally connected. 'Snice to have a single word for it, even if not many people know it.
Skald - Did Ginger get the job?
StG
I thought it was about people you weren’t sexually involved with. I do find my GF’s naked body attractive - she tells me off for ogling her when she gets dressed - but other women? No. Perhaps it’s just years of being accustomed to getting changed in communal locker rooms and not thinking of the other women there as sexual.
Pictures do nothing for me. They can be beautiful, but they’re not sexy.
As opposed to a question about guys’ poles?
Letting yourself be categorized like that if anything is the opposite of claiming to be a “special snowflake”.
For the pictures, yeah, but for seeing someone in person I would think it would be. How many other people does the average woman see naked in person? Then again I guess we could if we wanted to, and the fact that we don’t shows we don’t really care to.
Only if you think there are a lot of heterosexual demisexual transsexuals there with you. and for that matter think that anyone knows what “demisexual” even means. If I categorized myself Blackberrisexual that would be a special snowflake for sure.
I happen to have a gender and a sexuality, like most people. You have a problem because they’re unfamiliar to you. You know what that makes you? A fucking hick.
I admit it seems weird to me to be biologically one sex and then call yourself “heterosexual” because you’re attracted to the same biological sex. But whatever. I wouldn’t say anything or think much about that by itself. Adding another -sexual term, one no one even knows, to the equation just puts it over the top.
Also I think you’re inventing definitions of hick.
But you’re not getting it. It isn’t some word I just made up. You googled it, so you know that.
Also, heterosexuality and demisexuality aren’t mutually exclusive. Again, treating something with disdain because you don’t understand it is the behaviour of a hick.
I’m not going to address the comment about biology; I did so in another thread which I know you read, so I’m not going to repeat myself.