The Gray Lady wrote:It's part of the cultural script... so of course demisexuality sounds stupid in that regard. It sounds like "I'M A UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE YOU'RE A UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE LA LA LA I GET MY OWN TERM AND YOU GET TO BE THE EXCEPTION."
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. Our goal, of course, is to make asexuality and its variants normal and legitimate. But demisexuality just sounds so normal, that it plays into a cultural script. People will not be seen as weird for being demisexual; instead they'll be seen as weird because they have a whole special label for it, and believe they're special because of it. If we want to legitimize demisexuality as a public label (as opposed to one that's only used by the in-crowd), we either have to debunk the cultural narrative, or narrow the scope of demisexuality.
Debunking the cultural narrative doesn't seem feasible to me. Sure, we can point to Tim Minchin's song
("If I didn't have you, someone else would do") and stuff like that. But at the same time, we'd have to uphold this special group of demisexuals who allegedly really do
fit the narrative. I don't think I could do it.
And that's why I'd rather narrow the scope of demisexuality.
Honestly, I had no idea that "demisexual" had any broader definition beyond Rabger's model at all until I read this thread.
Yeah, I should link to AVENwiki's article on demisexuality
. It was written in June 2009. People on AVEN frequently take this article as the authoritative definition.
I think we should be careful to separate "sexual attraction" from reasons why you'd want to have sex.
I believe that the demisexual claims not just to want sex, but to want sex specifically because s/he experiences sexual attraction. There are other possible reasons to have sex, but sexual attraction is the one that applies to demisexuals.
Doing it because of a deep emotional attachment is... not the same thing as attraction, in my book. Because "attraction" carries the connotation of being the thing which (initially!) draws people together. So I would question whether it's actually sexual attraction that people are experiencing after developing such a strong attachment that they begin wanting to have sex with their partners, or something else.
I've never thought of attraction as just being that which initially draws people together. Or maybe I did think that at one time, but I think I had it beaten out of me. I need to reflect on this a moment...
Yeah, I think I disagree. Once a person is in a relationship, it may not be the exact same kind of sexual attraction at work, but I think it still fits under sexual attraction under a reasonable definition. To use an example, say a closeted gay man enters a relationship with a straight woman, and later decides that he's gay and tells her about it. So he basically admits to not being sexually attracted to her. If sexual attraction were only important in initiating the relationship, his gayness would be moot, since they somehow managed anyways. But his gayness is not moot, it's important, and has serious consequences for their relationship. Ergo, sexual attraction is important even after the initial stage of the relationship.
Or, if you're worried about definitions, I suppose I could just say that X is important after the initial stage of the relationship, where X is something which is determined by said gay man's gayness.