"Demi-sexual" (getting to know someone before being sexually attracted to them) - Is it unusual?

[Smitetheewiththunderbolts]

I came across the term "demi-sexual" on another thread and looked up the meaning. It basically refers to someone who doesn't feel sexually attracted to people until they get to know them - so not someone who snogs strangers on a night out, sort of thing.

This article from the Independent sums it up well:
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/demisexuality-what-is-it-sex-orientation-emotional-relationships-physical-a7912661.html

To me it seems normal but it's made out to be a minority thing. So I thought I'd put it to the Mumsnet Massive: does nearly everyone go round in a state of "Phoar, I wouldn't mind shagging him/her" when they meet new people? I had thought men tended to do that, less so women. But I'm prepared to be enlightened.

It's not a measure of how quickly you would act upon attraction (you might fancy the pants off someone on a first date but decide to wait a while before getting physical - that wouldn't be "demi-sexual"). It's whether your sexual interest is actually triggered very early into meeting new people, rather than taking a while to warm to them.

So which camp are you: instant sexual attraction or developing over time?

I'd call it 'being sensible' !
Yet another bollox made up category IMO!!!

instant sexual attraction or developing over time

I'm going to be a pain and say both depending on the person.

Sitting on the fence here too. Looking at online dating profiles some pictures definitely are attractive but I don't think that I'm going to think of them in that way until I've got to know a bit about them. Today a guy offer to try 2 hours to meet me on the first message! (I made a suitable excuse) I don't even want coffee with someone I haven't spoken to!

Both I would say sometimes there is an instant attractiveness n, sometimes attraction grows the more you get to know someone .

There's also being instantly attracted to someone and then going off them when you get to know them.

Both can and do happen but for me sexual chemistry has always been something that has been obvious from the start. I've never been in a relationship that 'grew'.

The insistence on turning something that is just a normal human behaviour into a sexual 'identity' is objectionable, attention-seeking bollocks though.

I think that's normal too.Maybe it's with online dating you mightn't bother with another meeting if no spark but otherwise you meet people,get to know them and then mutual attraction can grow.

It doesn’t matter he attractive someone is physically I only feel sexual attraction once getting to know them a tiny bit (this of course wouldn’t preclude me from finding someone I’d met ten minutes earlier attractive). Sexual chemistry, for me at least, is more in the interaction than in seeing the other person as a sexual object. I can’t usually tell after talking to someone forgive to ten minutes whether I am likely forfind them sexually attractive but sometimes it takes longer.

@StillMedusa I agree. My eyes rolled when I read the post.

Not snogging randoms doesn’t necessarily suggest not being sexually attracted to people you don’t know.

There's also being instantly attracted to someone and then going off them when you get to know them

So true that's more common.

From the Incredibles: When everyone is special; no one is

I know a lot of people are dismissive of the whole word salad, identity labelling thing but in this instance it is useful to realise that people have different 'speeds' and how that can result in incompatible styles of forming relationships. Eg speed dating or Tindr would be pointless (although anyone 'demi-sexual' has probably already figured that out without realising there's a name for it). But it explains why you can meet someone and by the time you've developed an interest in them, they've already moved on because they interpreted your coolness as lack of interest.

More unnecessary labelling of totally normal, probably universal, human experiences. I'm sure most people have found themselves attracted to someone who they weren't mad keen on at first meeting. Quite sad that people have so little to them that fancying someone after getting to know them can count as an 'identity'

Yes it's normal.

I think that the new sexuality boxes are coined from a hyper sexual male perspective. That it's standard to be up for it all the time with anyone. And anything else is unusual and needs a special name.

Also in todays v sexualised porn heavy society, maybe it was useful for young people to have a 'valid' excuse for not having sex immediately / with anyone (esp the girls but boys too). Sorry, I'm demi sexual seems like the new sorry I've got a boyfriend sorry I'm gay (although neither of those worked in the past so I wish them luck with this new one!).

I can't see what's 'demi' about it. It seems meaningless an arbitrary labelling of a normal approach.

Also in todays v sexualised porn heavy society, maybe it was useful for young people to have a 'valid' excuse for not having sex immediately

My little cousin struggles to find a girlfriend and says all the girls he knows are lesbian. And he says he doesn't blame them. Based on common male behaviour. It's depressing but yes, I feel like some young people need an identity to explain why they're not fucking anyone who asks in deeply porny ways.

But like people say, it can vary. Why are young people so obsessed wit putting themselves in sexual behaviour boxes when their gender is so 'fluid'?

I suppose it's so they can feel special all over again when they announce that no actually they don't fit in that particular box right now because they met someone and it was WHAM and they went home with them that night and have never left.

Tedious navel gazing at its finest.

yeah if youre not a total fuckboy then youre actually a demisexual

It’s just a load of Tumblr invented bollocks.

As Menuplant says, I actually think it was invented by young teens, probably virgins, as a way to counter the pressure to have sex. It’s also an opportunity to paint oneself as an oppressed minority which is an added bonus

TL:DR “Demisexual” is not a thing. It’s just a way of describing someone who isn’t into casual sex.

Tinder isn’t pointless if you’re not instantly sexually attracted to people You can still use it to get to know people and date them. Being on Tinder doesn’t oblige you to sleep with people straight away!

Yes that’s normal.

Why is there this obsession with labelling every different kind of personality as some kind of sexuality? Is there a ‘don’t fancy sec until I’m pissed’ sexuality or ‘only on a Tuesday if he’s wearing blue’ sexuality.

Oh fgs that’s just ridiculous. Shocker - everyone is different!!!

And that doesn’t make one person any less “normal”!

Larry yes made me think backs up my male perspective idea

Is there a sexuality for fancy it more when I'm ovulating
Women's sex drives are a lot more variable than men's I think, with a monthly cycle, but to mention changes around pregnancy breastfeeding etc. Not to mention menopause!

If women made a list of different 'sexualities' (by which they mean a mish mash of different things including sexuality, sexual preference, personality, sexual behaviours) it would look a bit different.

The current list seems to take a porn /stereotype male idea of hyper sexuality as the norm and everything else needs a label ie an explanation.

Women's list would be somewhat different I think 😀

Women's list would be somewhat different I think

Is there one for finding men more attractive when they're holding a puppy? Or doing housework?