tbh, i find the emergence of the concept of demisexuality very interesting, and i’m partial to thinking it’s a symptom of hypersexualized patriarchal culture that demands full sexual availability of women. wanting to develop an emotional bond before having sex is actually a very common and even normative thing, yet nowadays women seem to be under so much pressure to have casual sex that they strongly identify with demisexuality to justify the limits of their sexual comfort zone.
i wonder how the idea that not wanting to have sex with people you don’t know well needs its own label might be connected with the “sex-positive” movement and its ideas of “sexual empowerment”. we’ve conceptualized being sexual (as opposed to “half-sexual”) in very strict terms and reached a point where certain sexual behaviours, such as casual sex, are not just seen as normal and accepted but actually positioned as a required part of “full” sexuality, and by doing that we’ve abnormalized not wanting to have sex with people you don’t know well, which is alarming because there is an immense pressure on women to be sexually available to men.
Did you seriously just deny the legitimacy of a sexuality many people identify with? And over 2,500 people have reblogged it - is this seriously happening?
I mean, of course I agree that that we have an unbelievable problem of sexual entitlement in men (particularly heterosexual cis men), but that isn’t what demisexuality or any point on the asexual spectrum is about. And as a demisexual (possibly full-blown asexual, I’m still not sure) I’m a little offended to be honest.
I think you need to read and educate yourself on the different levels of attraction, asexuality, and demisexuality because frankly this is ignorant and disgusting, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just don’t know much about this sexuality.
Because it isn’t about wanting to have sex or not wanting to have sex; this isn’t celibacy or sex-is-special-and-intimate-so-I’m-holding-out-for-the-Right-Person. This is “I don’t experience sexual attraction,” or specifically for demisexuals, “I don’t experience sexual attraction unless there is an emotional connection.”
For example, I have no idea what sexual attraction feels like. I’ve never been emotionally connected with a person to the point where such an attraction could potentially develop. And the idea of someone touching makes my skin crawl. Do I want to have sex? Yes. But that’s more of a general desire; there’s no specific individual that I want to do that with, that I feel comfortable doing that with, that I feel attracted to in that manner.
But it’s different for all aces. Some are repulsed by sex, some aren’t. Some have sex (for a multitude of different reasons), some don’t. Some have never and will never experience sexual attraction, some experience it every now and then, some haven’t experienced it until one specific person came along. It’s different for everyone and, again, it’s not about wanting or not wanting to have sex; it’s about whether or not you experience sexual attraction, which is completely different than romantic attraction. Romantic orientation is a different ballpark.
To wrap this up, the label of demisexuality wasn’t created to ward off sexually aggressive men or to justify not wanting to have casual sex. It was created because there was a need for it. Because there are people out there who are a part of the asexual community but don’t completely fit under or identify with the definition because they experience sexual attraction under certain circumstances. And that may involve being emotionally connected to a person.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. You can fight for gender equality without invalidating a sexuality and all of the people that identify with it.
every time anyone characterises a male character who has canonically shown romantic interest in women as “gay 100% homosexual all about the dudes who likes girls ew! he’s definitely only into cisgender men!!!” i feel another strand of my hair turn to dragonscale
soon the transformation will be complete and the monster will emerge. the bi-wilderbeast. the levia-pan. the polygon
some muggleborn like “i want to be an astronaut when i grow up!”
wizard kids like “wtf is an astronaut”
"oh you know…the people who go to the moon"
*loses a follower*
*checks fave mutuals*
yeah ok whatever later nerd
labels are for soup cans and queer kids who want to know that they aren’t alone
If you really think that nothing was going on between Sirius and Remus you really need to stop lying to yourself.
queer authors: make all your characters queer. every single one of them. leave no room for alternate cishet interpretations. make straight people uncomfortable. let them cry about how unrealistic it is that no one is cishet. bottle their tears and pour them over your morning pancakes. savor the taste of their discomfort.
my phone autocorrected “queerness” to “queer mess” and it’s never understood me better than in that moment
when u dislike a song on an 8tracks but u dont dislike it enough 2 waste a skip on it so u just gotta suffer thru
ESTP: super attractive physically but it’s all downhill from there. never quite know what they’re going to do next but you can probably bet it will be irresponsible. somehow still lovable.
ESTJ: loud, logical, and get shit done — they are the warrior class of the life rpg. power stats make them unbeatable and if you encounter one, maybe just curl up and forfeit, to save time.
ESFP: giggly little shits. fun fun fun till her daddy takes the t-bird away. great for lifting your mood, not that great at lifting your credit score.
ESFJ: too appropriate, totally lacking in awkwardness. they’ll never forget your birthday, which will make you feel like shit when you constantly forget theirs.
ENTP: excellent companions if you enjoy people who instantly see through all your shit. very clever and very intuitive, you can’t fool them. i suggest you invest in other friends — ones you *can* fool.
ENTJ: impatient with people who make mistakes, namely, everyone. they’ll respect you if you stand up to them but why do that when you can run away instead. cuddle them and see what happens. i’m curious.
ENFP: too puppy to live. best suited for the profession of musical nanny. not advised for use around an open flame.
ENFJ: way too charming and capable, maybe they should stop making everyone else look bad. prone to making other people care about stuff they didn’t want to care about. so annoying.
ISTP: such butts. best suited for an apocalypse scenario, if no such scenario exists, they will create danger because they get bored. don’t encourage them, but don’t discourage them, as reverse psychology works too well.
ISTJ: low drama and low maintenance, best value at this price tier. best suited to actual human existence. least weird, which makes them kinda weird.
ISFP: squishy little darlings you might want to keep in your pocket, but please don’t or they will become forlorn. they notice everything, and it’s unnerving.
ISFJ: quietly and proudly do things for others. if you have a ring you need to deliver to mordor, take an ISFJ along with you for best results.
INTP: cute intergalactic spiders you want to hug and mistrust. prone to making you laugh but then days later you will wonder whether you were the butt of the joke.
INTJ: major dicks and kinda proud of it. prone to being right. prone to liking trance music way too much. all the ones i’ve ever met have been unexpectedly kinky. so i guess, expectedly.
INFP: they fall out of the sky and are raised by unicorns. if you feed one it will follow you home. they dissipate in water.
INFJ: chameleons appropriating your emotions and going quietly mad. prone to meltdowns and needing lots of naps.
this was supposed to say ohana means family autocorrect ruined a really beautiful moment