(filing this under: things to tell assholes who tell me demisexuality doesn’t exist, things i wish people would talk about more)
sexual attraction - a state of attraction involving sexual desire for another person, which usually manifests itself in sexual fantasies, genital arousal, or a general interest in having sex with the other person
- primary sexual attraction – sexual attraction that occurs toward a person one meets for the first time, doesn’t know well, or toward a stranger one sees in a public place. Usually based on the other person’s physical appearance or other superficial qualities that appeal. Primary sexual attraction also occurs toward celebrities or images of unknown individuals. This is what separates the average sexual person from demisexuals, as well as asexuals; the latter groups do not experience this sexual attraction.
- secondary sexual attraction – sexual attraction that occurs after an emotional bond has been established, whether that bond is romantic or not. This is the only kind of sexual attraction demisexuals experience. Sexual people in general also experience this in romantic or nonromantic/sexual relationships, subsequent to primary sexual attraction.
This is why I actually really like the primary/secondary sexual attraction model. It makes it so easy to explain demisexuality.
My only small issue with this definition, though, is that I think demisexuals can also experience primary sexual attraction, but subsequent to secondary sexual attraction. So for allosexuals and demisexuals, the order in which you may experience them is switched.
I would avoid the use of the word “superficial” because that word comes with so many negative connotations. One of the reasons some allosexuals hate on demis is because they think that demisexuals believe themselves to have better morals or to be less superficial. And I can see where they would be confused if some people in the demi/ace community use the word superficial to describe primary sexual attraction.
*white person shoots up movie theater* oh he probably maybe had a mental disorder and rough childhood, i feel bad for him we should have seen the signs and gotten him help….
*black person gets shot unarmed* oh he probably was walking around like a gangster thug, i want a full toxicology report and i’m def gonna ignore the eye witness accounts of the incident because they are all…you know…black…and probably biased and lying.
(Source: swimmer-chan, via ihatethelettuce)
Let me be clear: Unarmed college hopefuls don’t deserve to be shot. Unarmed kids heading to work or trade school don’t deserve to be shot. Unarmed kids floundering aimlessly through life don’t deserve to be shot. Unarmed kids who have been in trouble—even those who have been nothing but trouble—don’t deserve to be shot.
The act of pinning the tragedy of a dead black teen to his potential future success, to his respectability, to his “good”-ness, is done with all the best intentions. But if you read between the lines, aren’t we really saying that had he not been on his way to college, there’d be less to mourn?
That’s dead wrong.
Black Kids Don’t Have to Be College-Bound for Their Deaths to Be Tragic by Jasmine Banks (via gwest650)