That Weird Ace Woman | Demisexuality Is Valid and Queer
G-ddammit.
CW: acemisia discussion
Image description: the demisexual flag, which contains a black triangle with its hypotenuse as the leftmost border of the flag, a large white stripe on top, a thin purple stripe in the middle, and a large gray stripe on the bottom
On March 28, 2024, I got sick of the acemisia in how demisexuality was being discussed on Twitter and tweeted the following: “Oh are we doing this? Okay. Demisexuality is real, queer, & so much more than not liking one-night stands or whatever flattened strawmanny bullshit definition acemisic people are using.” I went on to describe what I saw of the coining of the term “demisexual” on AVEN back in the day, and define demisexuality in detail, including why it is inherently queer.
And now I’m going to write a blog entry about the same topic, because I never feel like just tweeting about it is enough. I’ll start with the history of the term “demisexuality.”
Back in 2005, AVEN user Rabger, whose userpic was a rabbit with tiger stripes, made a post describing all facets of asexuality. This post included a definition of demisexuality predicated on the ideas of primary and secondary sexual attraction. Rabger gave the following definition of “primary sexual attraction: ‘an instantaneous mental attraction based on physical appearances, which then creates sexual desire or sexual interest, despite level or intensity and may or may not be accompanied by arousal.’” Rabger’s definition of secondary sexual attraction was “mental attraction based on emotional development that occurs over time, which creates sexual desire despite level or intensity, and that may or may not be accompanied by arousal." Rabger went on to posit that people who are not anywhere on the asexual spectrum (then referred to as “sexuals,” which is considered outdated and offensive now) can experience primary sexual attraction…and that demisexual people don’t experience primary sexual attraction, but can experience secondary sexual attraction.
Now, Rabger’s model has fallen out of favor because arousal can have nothing to do with attraction and attraction can have nothing to do with arousal. Also, many people took “emotional development” to mean “romantic attraction,” which isn’t accurate to the experience of demisexual people. And unlike Rabger’s model, the current definition of demisexuality says nothing about sexual desire, only attraction. (Nota bene: sexual desire is the want to actually engage in sex, whether or not attraction is present. Yes, it is possible to have sexual desire without sexual attraction, e.g., someone who only wants to have sex in order to please their partner, or to conceive a child.) However, Rabger’s model is an important historical precursor to the current definition of demisexuality.
That current definition of “demisexual” is “a person who experiences sexual attraction if and only if a pre-existing emotional connection is in place.” It’s important to note that said sexual attraction is—generally, but not always—far more based on the emotional connection than anything physical. Demisexuality is an asexual-spectrum orientation, i.e., demisexual people are acespec. Now, this is critical: most people are not demisexual. Most people are able to experience sexual attraction that is not contingent on a preexisting deep emotional connection.
More things that demisexuality is not:
Disliking one-night stands
Disliking hookup culture
Experiencing sexual attraction but waiting to act on it
Being a woman (I especially hate this one)
I feel like some people get confused because they think the definition of demisexuality is based on sexual desire or sexual behavior. It’s not. It’s based on sexual attraction and lack thereof until the development of a strong emotional connection. It’s also important to note that demisexual people don’t necessarily feel sexual attraction in the presence of an emotional bond; it’s that they can’t feel sexual attraction in the absence of such a bond. Nota bene: the most up-to-date definition of “asexual” and acespec orientations include “lack of sexual attraction and/or desire.” Back in the day when we were coining terms on AVEN, we only talked about attraction, but I get the inclusion of desire, especially because the line between the two can be blurry. The definition of demisexual, though, still usually only refers to attraction, not desire.
Demisexuality is queer because it is an acespec orientation, and asexuality and the orientations under the asexual umbrella are queer. Asexual spectrum orientations diverge from and challenge the norms of heterosexuality and compulsory sexuality, which makes them queer. (For more on compulsory sexuality, read Sherronda J. Brown’s excellent book Refusing Compulsory Sexuality.)
No, seriously, read Refusing Compulsory Sexuality. Here’s a quote from it that I love:
We have to acknowledge the damage that is done when we don’t admit that our society views sex as compulsory, an inescapable obligation, largely because it is viewed as something owed to men.
I could honestly quote half that book and say “I love this quote.” It’s one of the most insightful, important books I’ve ever read, and I want a copy badly. Okay, you know what, have a whole excerpt:
People on the asexuality spectrum, also called ace, experience little to no sexual attraction and/or little to no sexual desire, and these things are not evidenced by either the presence or absence of sexual arousal or activity. Even though “lacking sexual attraction and/or desire” is the widely accepted general definition, I do not understand asexuality to be defined by this “lack.” It is not about being without sexuality, though some may choose to describe themselves this way. I believe it is more true to say that asexuality is defined by a relationship to sex that is atypical to what has been decided on by society at large to be normative, and that atypical nature is marked by varying degrees of sexual attraction and desire. Asexual experiences stand outside what has been accepted and approved of as “normal” sexual experiences for both the queer and the heterosexual communities.
Here are just a few things people “know” about sex, attraction, and desire:
Sexual attraction and desire, whether queer or heterosexual, are universal; everyone experiences them and should experience them in the same way.
Sex is a necessary, unavoidable part of life and inherent to human nature.
Everyone is allosexual—experiencing sexual attraction and desire in normative ways. Anyone who does not have sex is merely celibate or abstinent, suppressing their sexual urges for moral, spiritual, or religious reasons, and people who claim not to want sex are disordered or stunted in some way.
Sex occurs because sexual attraction and desire signal that we actively want to have sex with someone.
Desire for sexual contact is sustained, especially within committed romantic relationships.
Partnered sex is more important, more valuable, and more mature than solo sex.
These ideas are immovable and not influenced by societal expectations, permissions, or other environmental factors.
…asexuality itself—the utmost “abnormal” sexuality, according to many—is already a challenge to these “truths,” as it recognizes that we do not experience sexual attraction and desire universally or uniformly precisely because some of us do not experience them at all. It acknowledges that desire for sexual contact with others will not always be sustained, that it is possible for desire to never even be present, and more importantly, that boundaries should always be honored when desire is not present. The asexual lens reveals that sex can and does occur in the wake of mutual sexual attraction, but that it also occurs for a myriad of other reasons, and there are a whole host of negotiations, rationalities, and compromises that take place— sometimes in a split second—when we decide to have sex. It understands that sex can be technically consensual, but still unwanted. Asexual consciousness recognizes that none of the things we “know” to be true about sex are immovable, and they are always influenced by societal expectations, permissions, or other environmental factors.
I wish I could swallow this book so I had it memorized and could quote it at will. I can’t praise it enough. I will also note that it was especially critical for me as a white gray-A person to read Refusing Compulsory Sexuality, as it is specifically a Black asexual lens on compulsory sexuality.
Anyway, I think that’s all I have for today. Tl;dr demisexuality is valid and queer, and not understanding either of those things is acemisic. Don’t be acemisic during Pride. Or any other time, for that matter.
Eternal thanks to my wonderful Patreon supporters: Ace, Atiya, Emily, Hannah, Max, and Syd! It’s only $1 a month to be as cool as them (and you’ll also get perks like seeing blog entries two days early and being able to vote in polls on my next entry topics). I also am about to start posting monthly Patreon-exclusive infodumps about my various special interests (past and present) there.