Social Justice Usage
Source: “What is Demisexuality,” demisexuality.org.
Demisexuality is a sexual orientation in which someone feels sexual attraction only to people with whom they have an emotional bond. Most demisexuals feel sexual attraction rarely compared to the general population, and some have little to no interest in sexual activity.
New Discourses Commentary
“Demisexual” is the word used to describe someone who only feels sexual attraction in the presence of an emotional bond. Within the broad umbrella of queer Theory (within the Theory of Critical Social Justice), it is considered a (quasi-stable) sexuality and sexual identity category. As such, it would be considered a “queer” identity that therefore has both personal meaning and political valence (see also, personal is political).
The concept of “demisexuality” is not at all hard to understand and requires almost no elaboration except that it is unlikely to be a fully realistic description of one’s actual sexual response and is not quite the same thing as a sexuality or sexual identity in the way we usually conceive of these. It is, in fact, most likely a miscategorized reaction to the fact that, contra modern feminism (see also, third-wave feminism and blank slatism), many women are not as interested in casual sex as are men. In that sense, it is the attempt to categorize as queer that which is normal and yet rendered uncomfortable from attempting to understand it from an unrealistic Theoretical position. This also isn’t difficult to understand. The interesting concern, then, is that the ideology of Critical Social Justice would regard it as a sexuality at all. The reasoning for this is that despite it being common, especially in women, for people to only feel sexually attracted to people for whom they have some measure of romantic attraction, giving it an unlikely name elevates it to a status of being special and, when adopted in a political sense, queer.
Put simply, people who think in Theory believe that every possible manifestation or quirk of sex, gender, sexuality, ability status, or mental illness constitutes a unique identity category and seek to reify it as such. This is part and parcel with how adherents to Theory think about the world and themselves in it. Nevertheless, the objective with that “queering” line of thought is that it is an important critical goal to disrupt any possibility that assumptions attributed by the ideology to hegemonic “heterosexuality” might be considered normal or normative. On a more basic psychological and sociological level, it allows people who are experiencing something quite normal to feel extra special by it through the process of giving it a technical name to induce them into thinking of it and themselves in a way that is productive of queer identity politics (see also, queer Theory, intersectionality, and solidarity).
Related Terms
Blank slatism; Critical; Feminism; Identity; Identity politics; Intersectionality; Normal; Normativity; Personal is political, the; Queer; Queer, v.; Queer Theory; Social Justice; Solidarity; Theory; Third-wave feminism; Women
Revision date: 12/11/20
8 comments
I once had a date with a woman who told me she was demisexual, but she explained it in a way that actually made a lot of sense:
It may be that people have 2 different reflexes for sexual attraction: Primary attraction, which is what you feel when you notice someone “hot,” and secondary, which is the sexual arousal that arises in an established relationship but which doesn’t particularly require hotness.
She said that nobody seems “hot” to her, and that some people like herself have capability for only secondary attraction.
While I agree with the article about the radical politics, we should also recognize that a term like demisexual has a far more ordinary utility when someone like her needs to explain to a date about what they should expect. By requiring her dates to accept an identity concept associated with her low sexual desire, she has a hedge against a partner’s complaints.
Thanks Dave – you called it! Now what’s the new fashionable term these days for someone who refuses to identify with, or be defined by sexual preference at all, because it’s no one’s bloody business but their own and who they choose to share that with? Old fashioned privacy and discretion – has that been rebranded or is it a hate crime? The absence of meritocracy has left such a gaping orifice that it seems only exclusive obsession with genitalia and self image can fill it. Imagine if instead of the Reproductive System (‘muh sexuality……’) the defining feature we’re all commanded to be identifying with and ‘expressing’ ourselves by was The Digestive System. My husband would definitely be in favour of Rights & Protections for the excessively flatulent.
James, your work in breaking down this pseudo technical language is marvellous and much appreciated. What conservatives and traditional liberals (and apoliticals) failed to do was call bullshit as this pseudo intellectual charade took hold. Failure to push back during its inception and contagion. It makes pushback now appear aggressive and hostile as the mind virus is so prolific and for a majority younger people – their perceptual reality. I suspect repressive tolerance (rather than pushback) happened because it was financially and socially rewarded. We’re dealing with conflicting and opposed perception. Does pushback lead to apartheid, or co existence? A key problem is the institutional/organizational demand for public displays of allyship where one side has to lie and bear false witness. How do we maintain boundaries between the public and the private? How do we keep the ‘bedroom door’ closed in the public square? I know it was the goal of the radicals to make ‘the private’ public, so what’s the most effective opposing intellectual argument without sounding prudish or bible thumping? There’s the right to bodily integrity but what about emotional integrity i.e. eradicating this toxic grooming from the schools in order to safeguard our children? Loving the ‘Groomer Schools’ series but in addition to our own family moral compass the healthy development of our kids (NOT a ‘social construct’!) we need to be armed with rigorous intellectual ammo in order to counter the radicals’ Establishment orthodoxies which are increasingly enshrined in law.
Demisexual=bisexual (maybe) who doesn’t do one night stands
Importantly, this is where Critical Theory comes full circle. Anything normal gets a new name and category and is politicized. Once politicized, normal heterosexual people can demand special rights and privileges. We’re back!!
Demisexuality is a term for normal people conjured by queer theorists, so that they don’t feel left out of the cool sex-obsessed crowd.
By what logic can demisexuality be considered a sexual orientation?
A sexual orientation is defined as one’s attraction based on sex (or gender!!). Anything else is just a sexual preference.
One can only have one sexual orientation, not two. You’re either homosexual, bisexual or hetereosexual.
That doesn’t work for preferences though. You be a gay foot fetishist or a straight foot fetishist.
You can be a gay demi”sexual” or a straight demi”sexual” or a bisexual demi”sexual”.
The same thing is also applied to the so-called sapiosexual. A sapio”sexual” is also inevitably either homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.
You can’t turn every sexual preference into a sexual orientation. What’s next? Footsexual? Slimsexual? Belowtheageof50sexual? Richsexual?
Plain and simple: More narcissism..
Check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c5XqWbozhE
‘Why I hate the term demisexual’