Not by halves

[liv]

sovay has a really interesting proposal to use philosexual as an alternative to demisexual. I wanted to note it here because I found the neologism, and the discussion chez Sovay, helpful.

I have no problem with other people identifying as demisexual. It's just that, very often when someone describes why that label works for them, they describe an experience of sexuality that is very similar to mine, but like sovay I feel actively alienated by the term as applied to me.

I understand that just because demisexual contains the prefix "demi", doesn't mean it's only half as good as being allosexual. But as per the discussion in the comments, it seems to be used in practice as relating to the asexual spectrum. And I, unfairly, resent that. I'm highly sexual in some ways, sex is important to me, and my sexual feelings can be intense. But I have no sexual interest at all in people I don't know, people who are merely good-looking whether they're celebrities or strangers I've only just met. (I have fallen in love at first sight, but I didn't start feeling sexually attracted to the person I fell in love with until we'd been close friends for months.) So does that make me demisexual?

I don't want to appropriate the experiences and identity of the a-spec community for one thing. But for another, well, as far as I can tell most women aren't interested in sex with strangers, and a large minority of men aren't either. I suppose there's some middle ground between experiencing attraction, and actively wanting to have sex with someone, and the term demisexual only refers to the attraction part. But even so, it feels like what's called demisexual is basically the default, and if anything we should have a special word like "xenosexual" for people who get hot and bothered when they see a photo of a model in a magazine or a sprite in a computer game of a scantily dressed person of an appropriate gender.

ethelmay notes that I think the term "demisexual" has gotten irretrievably mixed up with responsive rather than spontaneous desire. So not only is it occupying much of the same semantic space as "gray-ace", it's being crowbarred into meaning sexual desire arising primarily within overtly sexual contexts as opposed to the supposed default of sexual desire just appearing out of nowhere. I suspect that default basically comes from young men who get spontaneous erections; I'm not sure it ought to be the unmarked norm.

I don't know if philosexual is the right answer, partly because the fragment philo has too many different meanings and is often used to refer to a fetish that the speaker wants to imply is weird or deviant. But I sort of want an identity word that means, I'm attracted to people I actually like and have an emotional connection with. I'm highly sexual in the context of the small number of people I'm attracted to, I don't see myself as being on the asexual spectrum at all.

I think there's something I'm missing here. I feel I generally understand asexuality as a broad umbrella term, with the caveat that there's only so much to glean from reading other people's accounts of an experience you don't share. But demisexual is such a positive, affirming identity for lots of people and just doesn't click for me.

I also have thoughts about demigender, but I'm not sure I can articulate them without offending all my non-binary friends, so I'll keep letting that swirl around in my own head for a bit.

Comments

[ambyr]

My understanding from talking to more allosexual friends is that when they say they are sexually attracted to people they don’t know, they mostly don’t mean they actually want to have sex with them (though I have friends of all genders who definitely do mean that), but they almost all mean they frequently find it pleasant to fantasize about having sex with them. And that’s the part I can’t relate to—the idea of conceptualizing as a sexual being someone I don’t share an intimate connection with. It’s like fantasizing about having sex with the value of Pi; it doesn’t compute as a thing that’s possible to feel.

[finding_helena]

This is the impression I got as well.

I hang out on a demisexual Discord server (though my self-labeling has evolved and I don't consider myself demisexual anymore). Experiences there are all over the map but often seem to carry a degree of feeling isolated or alienated from the cultural norms regarding how people talk about sex and (sometimes) how they act. Now what percent actually are covered by those "norms"? I don't know. But I do think a LOT of people experience that attraction pretty readily, even if they would not choose to do anything about it until they knew the person better. There is a whole category of experiences in this realm that I cannot relate to at all. I'm not convinced demisexual is the norm (though maybe it is among certain groups... I suspect a lot of my personal friends skew more that way).

I guess I would also say, if asexual doesn't resonate for you, then don't claim that particular label. I know there are other demisexuals who don't feel they resonate with the ace spectrum, and that's okay.

[liv]

Thank you, this seems like you've been more deeply involved in demisexual community discussions than I have, so I appreciate your insight. I suppose it doesn't really matter whether the majority of people are demisexual or whether the majority are whatever the opposite is. The cultural norm is that being demisexual is weird.

This is one of those areas where I'm a bit inclined to be politically angry about the norms, though. There's the stereotypical straight bro thing of dividing absolutely all women into fuckable or not. And I don't want to define all other identities and experiences in relation to that. I do understand that demisexual means something more than just 'not a fuckboy'; you can be attracted to someone without objectifying them, of course. It's also bad form to say that my approach to sexuality doesn't need a label, it's just normal.

It is reassuring to me that there are people who ID as demisexual without considering themselves to be part of the asexual spectrum. That makes me less prickly about the term. It does seem useful to have language for readily experiencing attraction without an emotional connection, or not experiencing that, roughly independent of the other factors which (for basically all allosexual people) determine whether or not you want to act on attraction.

[liv]

Thank you, this is a really helpful clarification. I think I could, if it were for some reason necessary, fantasize about a stranger; I would make up a bunch of head-canon about what sort of person they might be and how we might become friends. So it's not quite as weird to me as being attracted to an abstract concept. But honestly I'd just as rather fantasize about a completely imaginary person. And I wouldn't have any spontaneous inclination to be attracted to strangers or even acquaintances.

[ursula]

Hi, I am the opposite of you! In the framing of this post, that is, I'm xenosexual but at best gray-romantic. (I have fallen in love with one person in my life; after nine years, we got married.)

I identify with a lot of the ace critique of the primacy of relationships in our culture, and I'm pretty sure that young teenage me would've contemplated an ace identity if that had been a well-known thing when I was thirteen. But the usual demisexuality story is alienating to me, in a way that the "philosexual" label crystallizes. I think it feels emotionally intrusive?

[liv]

Wow, what a fascinating perspective, thank you for talking about that! I absolutely agree that the ace community has cogent things to say about overvaluing sexual-romantic relationships compared to any other kind. I somewhat identify as quirky-alone, even though I'm married and part of a long-term poly relationship, in part because my close friendships are as important to me as my officially recognized couple relationships.

And I'm also most grateful to the ace community for coming up with good language to talk about sexual and romantic attraction as at least possibly separate things. I like reclaiming the possibility of having sex mainly just as a fun thing to do, rather than a sign that a relationship is hugely Significant, or conversely being emotionally life-partner level attached to someone without it being mainly about sex. But if demisexual is a thing, that implies that the default is that sexual attraction is a completely discrete emotion with no connection to any other aspect of how people relate to each other. Most A-spec people are more likely than the norm to separate sexual attraction from emotional connection, but demisexual people are positioned as less likely than the norm to separate these different aspects of attraction.

Emotionally intrusive seems like a useful phrase, thank you for that one.

[doseybat]

Hmm I empathise with your position, and don't have a good solution. Most of the time I am exactly as you describe. But some of the time, often in unusual situations like travelling, the spontaneous sex drive and fancying people wakes up, with sufficient intensity that it can take over normal function. My impression is that the "spontaneous predatory" sexual mode kicks in under high stress levels, and also if I am very energetic approaching a hypomanic state, and a big change of circumstances makes it more likely. When doing the counselling recently I realised that I was very confused about my sexual identity because I have such contradictory experiences - but luckily counsellor knows this area and explained it is common to have a standard preference, surrounded by variability which is more occasional.

[liv]

That makes sense. My general sense of the research is that most people's sexuality changes somewhat over life, I'm glad your counsellor was able to be helpful. It's sort of hard to know about variability because there's the narrative of 'born this way' where it's politically important to claim an exclusive, constant preference, or at the same time straight people can be quite invested in avoiding any sort of introspection about their "normal" sexuality.

I also feel very lucky in that I've basically never been overwhelmed by sexual feelings. I don't know if that's part of being demisexual.

[siderea]

Oooh, not my identity problem, but I do like "philosexual" as a term, in that it does use the stems well.

[sfred]

I have lots of the feelings about "demisexual" that you describe yourself having. A perhaps-difference: I even fancy quite a lot of people! But I rarely if ever do so unless we've been friends for some time.

I'm also interested in your thoughts on "demigender", if you do feel able to share.

[liv]

Solidarity. Being attracted to lots of your friends I find much easier to relate to than being attracted to strangers, even if that attraction is rare. I think that for most people I broadly like, there's a potential that I could be attracted to them if the situation warranted it. I've had a few relationships which started with someone expressing interest, and I responded: well, I hadn't really thought of you that way, but if you're offering... and that seems to work quite well for me. But it's different from my usual experience of fancying someone.

The demigender thing, well. I definitely trust you to be supportive even if I express myself clumsily, but I'm nervous that I'm being a flaily annoying cis person by even thinking along these lines. I think the best summary is that I have a certain degree of wistfulness towards some sort of non-binary identity, except that basically everybody I know who is non-binary, even people who specifically identify as agender, is way more masculine than me. So on the one hand I'm drawn to questioning whether my female assignment is fully correct, but on the other I'm pushed away because the whole non-binary cluster seems like yet another gender that I can only fail at.

So maybe if I can't be non-binary (cos not masculine enough), I can be demigender rather than just 'bad at girl'. But I think that might be insulting to both actual non-binary people and to real demigender folk.

[sfred]

(Sorry for the delay in replying - it is excessive busyness rather than any disinclination.)

The following is all wrapped with a big tape that says "I am not making any assumptions about what your gender actually is"!

You are absolutely not a flaily annoying cis person. <3 There should be no gatekeeping around any of this.

In my experience, almost all non-binary people worry that they're not non-binary enough at some point. That doesn't mean you *are* non-binary, but it is a thing.
I'm frustrated with the widespread assumption that non-binary = masculine, and that it makes some less-masculine AFAB people feel that they can't possibly be non-binary. I find it frustrating that it's set up like another box that someone can fail at being in, rather than being the whole space outside the two popular boxes.

(I worry that I'm misrepresenting myself by saying I'm non-binary when I'm sitting right up against the line of describing myself as a man. But this is the side of the line where I belong, at least at the moment.)

I do know quite a few non-masculine non-binary people (including people I presume are AFAB).
Um, this is a bit of a jumble of statements, but really, the point is that your noodling is valid and I don't think you should be put under pressure to contain your noodling in a particular set of boxes.

[wendylove]

"I sort of want an identity word that means, I'm attracted to people I actually like and have an emotional connection with."

Yes - me too. When I first encountered "demisexual," I thought "that would have been a convenient term for me to have as an option back in undergrad," but it doesn't work for me at all at my current age and stage in life. And I agree - how is this not the norm?

I had a conversation with my 13yo daughter a few weeks ago in which she basically asked if she was supposed to be having Sex Feelings For Other People yet and I said, in my experience, not at all - it's more that all the media seem to focus on that, the same way they assume everyone is dating everyone else in high school, because it makes for a more interesting story. But that's about as realistic as the part where every questionably employed young protagonist can afford lovely spacious apartments in various high-rent city centers.

[liv]

I was exactly like that at 13, so I'm really glad your daughter has a supportive parent. I really wasn't even slightly interested in sex until I was nearly out of my teens. So there's a certain discourse where you get very young people saying they're asexual, and I really don't want to be that awful person who dismisses someone's hard won identity as just a phase, but on the other, I do think it's pretty normal to be uninterested in sex at 15 but interested after all at 20.

And that feels very parallel to the demisexuality discussion; it feels really normal for sex to be contextual and part of a connection to other people, but I absolutely do believe people who say that being demisexual as such is different to that. I just don't really understand what the distinction is.