I have never really liked all the labels but I have ended up with the mindset that labels matter to those who can't find one for themselves and once they do they cling onto it because they finally can put a word to it and for lots of people, thats important.
Thanks for this, makes it a bit clearer where it comes from yeah. This, and other stuff regarding sexual drive, and binary-ness and such, made me think though -- it seems that this all is sort of a new system, or systems, to describe sexuality and gender. I'm wondering if that's maybe a good way to bring it to people who are okay (or don't know any better) with the current system. Instead of framing it as hetero-normative vs LGBTQ etc., you frame it as old system vs new system.
I think it's more specific than that. Someone might not be into one-night stands or whatever and still not be demi-sexual; they'd find that woman sexually attractive and maybe have sexual thoughts and desires ("wow she's hot", "I'd do her" etc.) without ever wanting to act on those thoughts for whatever reasons ("I'm married", "she's hot but I don't do one-night stands", etc.). A demi-sexual, however, would not find her "hot" at all. They might think she's pretty (the same way a nice painting is) but not have any sexual thoughts or any feeling of attraction, until after they get to know the person.
This is pretty much how I feel actually. I have a partner who I'm into. I notice and appreciate hot people (a lot, actually) but don't really want to fux them personally. That seems like so much work, and have to be in a certain mood, etc... The thought tires me.
to show you that there's a higher percentage you should probably put them on ignore
If attraction is physical and emotional, they are only emotional.
I think this throws off a lot of people... and I would say there was definitely a time where I was one of those. It's easy for people to assume gender identity and gendered sexuality are two sides to the same coin, but that's not always the case.
I mean asexuality in general is a pretty nebulous thing - I mean I'm sure some people are never horny with no sex drive or desire to be intimate with someone else but then there's the broader spectrum. Personally for me it's very obvious looking at my history that my sexuality is different than my peers, and I guess the best way I can describe it is that it's mostly 'off', it's just not really on my mind much, but I have flashes of it being there and a hesitant desire to connect on a romantic level. I guess it could be gray, demi, or asexual, don't know, but it's pretty distinctly non-sexual regardless. So I think gray asexual is less than "sometimes horny", it's more like nonsexual with flashes of sexual desire here and there, and perhaps at a lesser intensity than the average joe.
Suddenly this makes tons of sense. Thank you!
I mean every subgroup has their own flag and colors so in a sense the mapping has already been done, it just doesn't obey any rigorous schema.
So I think at the least we'd need at least 4 axes. Masculine/feminine, homosexual/heterosexual, asexual/pansexual, cis/trans. There's probably a few more I can't think of.
Hah comforting to know. Basically the entire process of figuring it out is process of elimination
I don't think these two are opposites. But I like the idea of a calculable designation.
Yeah that one doesn't work out great as a binary I just listed it as the first thing that came to mind that might form "the extremes".
