Limited by Our Language: A Critical Reply to Demisexual Exclusionism (Part 1)
The Discourse™
On July 6th 2021, Michaela Kennedy-Cuomo came out in public as Demisexual. This event soon sparked conversations on Twitter centred around the validity of Demisexuality.
Exclusionists quickly posted arguments highlighting their skepticism of the existence of Demisexuality. This prompted many from the Asexuality spectrum (Aspec) corner of Twitter to counter head-on their taking points. The aftermath left some of the people in my social media orbit feeling emotionally exhausted.
It triggered memories of the first time I came out to someone as Demisexual. I came out to a friend I’d respected and admired. Their vocal progressivism and support of LGBTQ+ issues made me think they’d be supportive. I was wrong. They immediately replied with Point #5 on my list of exclusionary talking points (“Didn’t you know? Some teenaged girl invented Demisexuality on a role-playing game forum”). It left me feeling raw and hurt. I never completely processed those feelings. Instead, I decided to bury them for the sake of continuing my friendship. The discussion around Kennedy-Cuomo forced me to confront them again. I imagined what I could have said to my friend if I’d been a little smarter or a little more assertive.
Deconstructing Exclusionism
Besides meeting exclusionary arguments head-on, it is also possible to deconstruct them. That way, we can address what is at their core: heteronormativity, amatonormativity, and patriarchy.
These norms are the root of exclusionary points directed at Demisexuals (and Asexuals, Bisexuals, and Trans folx). Arguably, these conventions are what we really argue against. These run parallel to the surface-level canards often repeated in discussions about Demisexuality.
When we confront these norms, we can shape the discourse into a positive and inclusive conversation. A conversation that includes everyone existing outside traditional standards of love and sexuality. Through inclusion, we reach a better way to more positively affirm our own identities, as beautifully messy, and as subtly nuanced as they are.
In this essay, I outline five exclusionary talking points I’ve encountered, directed at Demisexuals. My responses are examples of how they can be answered through a lens critiquing traditional relationship norms. My aim is to (hopefully!) do more than address them on the surface. Hopefully this opens more conversations about how we can address amatonormativity, heteronormativity, and patriarchy.
Critical Responses to Demisexual Exclusion
1. “You’re Demisexual? That just means you aren’t open to hook ups.”
Apart from denials and refutations to this point, what if we take it at face value, and dissect it?
This point carries the tone that you, the Demisexual, should be open to hook ups. In my experience, this point generally comes from privileged cis-normative men, so the added layer is that you should be open to a hook up with them. Or at least, someone of their general privilege and social class. Here we see amatonormativity and heteronormativity at play. You should be open to hookups and casual sex, especially with privileged cis-normative men. According to societal norms, sexual gratification is what they are owed from others who they perceive as beneath them. Your consent is irrelevant. The relationship configuration or context you want, which isn’t acceptable to society, is devalued and shamed.
My answer to that then, would be, “Yeah. I personally wouldn’t prefer to have a casual sexual relationship with someone. So what?”
The greater questions are, “You imply that not being open to hook ups has negative value. Why is that? And why do you feel people should be shamed for opting out of hookup culture if they don’t want to, regardless of their sexual or gender orientation?”
Their answers will speak to their attitudes towards sexual and gender diversity.
2. “You just want to feel morally superior.”
Seen through the lens of critiquing amatonormativity and heteronormativity, this is an accusation. It is a charge of haughtiness levelled at Demisexuals and Asexuals. It assigns blame on those feeling ill-suited to how these norms define “success” in dating, sex, and relationships.
It is not arrogant to feel ill-suited to amatonormative views on relationships and sexuality. It is not arrogant to feel ill-suited to the heteronormative or patriarchal centering of sex in relationships. Instead, I find it an empowering state of thinking. It is a place where we can find authenticity, amidst a greater sexual and romantic culture that expects compliance and assimilation.
I want to be clear that I have no problem with people engaging in casual sex (as long as it is consentual, respectful, and safe). Identifying on the Asexual spectrum is also in no way shape or form a condemnation of casual sex, or any other kind of relationship focused on sex. People in casual sexual relationships (or other non-normative sexual relationships) actually struggle against the same norms as Demisexuals and Asexuals.
Amatonormativity doesn’t just discriminate against people on the Asexual and Aromantic spectrum. It also discriminates against those who are nonmonogamous as well. Not only do Demisexuals not “want to feel morally superior” to others, but they are actually in solidarity with all who struggle against sexual norms that are both restrictive and harmful.
3. “Demisexuality is just describing what people normally are.”
I often see responses to this point that argue for Demisexuality being a Queer identity separate from Allosexuality. But it is also possible to approach this point from different angle: “If that was true, then why is casual sex and hookup culture so pervasive in modern culture? Why does rape culture and current dating culture continue to be a significant challenge to the health and safety of women all over the world?”
If Demisexuality were the norm, society would recognize the importance of emotional connection for sexual attraction. People would put more energy and attention into nurturing those connections through tools like healthy boundaries, radical vulnerability, and consent.
In our current society, however, such tools are poorly socialized. They are also largely absent from current sexual education curricula.
If Demisexuality were the norm, the prevailing attitudes in society toward love and romance would be very different. Demisexuality is not necessarily monogamous, nor is it inherently monosexual. Society would then welcome a diverse array of relationships. It would range from normative cis-het relationships, to queerplatonic relatonships to bisexual or pansexual polyamory, and everything in between. All would be welcomed. They would all be relationships where sexual attraction could be experienced through safe, consentual emotional connections.
In reality, “what people normally are” is far, far from that. One need only open their eyes to how society views sexuality and relationships to see that.
Heteronormativity carries the assumption that binaries underpin identities both in relationships and society. Hand-in-hand with that is the assumption of patriarchal power in relationships. Amatonormativity shapes how those relationships should look. We see this in our society. We see the sexual and romantic privilege and entitlement enjoyed by cis-normative men (rape culture being one example). It is seen in how sex is often centered as the absolute focal point of relationships. We also see it in how society discriminates against all other forms of relationships and romantic connection. Demisexuality is by nature open to a wide range of attractions and relationships outside of the binary. Therefore, it subverts these norms, questioning what “people normally are”.
In reality, “What people normally are” is bound to heteropatriarchal norms and amatonormativity, which pressures people to exist in relationships where they may have to compromise their authentic selves. It also establishes a culture around dating and sex where consent, boundaries, and safety are devalued.
Demisexuality isn’t a description of what people normally are. But perhaps society and the quality of our relationships would benefit greatly if everyone really was Demisexual.
4. “Demisexuality? Stop making up new words.”
The key phrase that jumps out at me here is, “Stop making up new words”.
Our understanding of human sexuality has changed, and is changing. Conversations on social media have grown in both depth and breadth around topics such as Bi Lesbianism and Mspec Lesbianism. Awareness has grown around Asexuality and Asexual spectrum identities. The dialogue continues to challenge accepted notions of sexual and romantic attraction. It is dynamic, and continually evolving.
Our understanding of the expression and meaning of sexuality is changing. With that, language must change too. That includes new words, pronouns and terms to describe what, in the past, was either poorly understood or not understood at all. The term “Demisexual’’ is an example of this.
To say we should stop evolving our language is like saying we should stop trying to better understand sexuality. That we should just be content to use the labels of static heteronormative and patriarchal sexual binaries. This pressures people into conformity to amatornormative and heteronormative ideals. It strips people of potentially empowering and self-affirming language to better understand and define their sexuality. In doing so, it is arguably both mentally and emotionally harmful.
We owe it to ourselves to be more welcoming of the lived experiences of the generations ahead of us, than those who came before us.
5. “Didn’t you know? Some teenage girl invented Demisexuality on a role-playing game forum.”
For the sake of this argument, let’s set aside the fact that the evolution of the term Demisexual (including the term “Semisexual”) is well-documented on the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) forums. Let’s also set aside the fact that it was developed on the AVEN forums as a term to describe those who, experienced no sexual attraction overall, except when, “contingent upon emotional attraction developing first.”
Again, let’s take this claim completely at face value. The first response that comes to my mind is “So what?” Here, it is important to dissect the word, “Demisexual”.
The etymology behind the prefix “demi-“ is, according to Merriam-Webster, to denote something that is “half-“ or partially belonging to a specified class. A popular example would be Hercules, a Demigod in that his father was Zeus, and his mother was Alcmene, a mortal human.
Let’s think of Asexuality not as a fixed point, but as a continuum. There would be an area where people experience Asexuality in its totality, and another area where people do not experience Asexuality at all.
And if those two areas exist, then there must exist a middle region. In this region people may experience moments of sexual attraction amidst a larger backdrop of Asexuality, or live the Asexual experience amidst general periods of sexual attractions to others. In other words, a liminal space between Asexuality, and Allosexuality. It would be inhabited by those who, for a variety of reasons, neither identify as fully Asexual, nor as fully Allosexual: Demisexual.
We now refer to this specifically as Grey Asexuality. As it is understood now, Demisexuality is commonly considered a subset under this label. This still grounds Demisexuality as a genuine lived experience of understanding and expressing (A)sexuality.
If we take it on fact that a teenage girl did invent Demisexuality — and did so in bad faith — so what? Does that affect the usefulness of the term Demisexual? If we look at the word as it etymologically stands on its own, to me the answer is clearly no.
If we look at how the word is employed today, the answer is also no. The term Demisexual has grown in its use and value. More people are seeing that sexuality needn’t be confined to heteronormative terms. More people are also understanding how nuanced and complicated sexuality can be. And with more understanding comes a need for language that can better describe it. People are finding friendship and mutual support through the Demisexual identity. Especially those who find themselves in that liminal space between Asexuality and Allosexuality. It doen’t matter if Demisexuality was intended to be a joke at the expense of people questioning their sexuality. It has since been reclaimed by a community seeking to better understand and empower itself.
Which brings me to my second question: Why would you make that argument?
Expressions such as “Demisexuality was created by a 15 year old girl from a fetish forum” are clearly used to devalue and invalidate Demisexuals. Where one group has grown a community to better understand their Queerness, others are trying to cut it down. Apart from simple malicious intent, or immature ego-centrism, why are they seeking to do this?
Demisexuality and the Asexual spectrum challenge traditional standards for relationships and sexuality. They show us that it is possible to have intimate and fulfilling relationships outside of amatonormative and heteropatriarchal views of sex and dating.
This is offensive to those deeply attached to those norms, and those using them to assert their sexuality. These are people who use toxic masculinity, rape culture, misogyny, or Queerphobia to define themselves. To those people, the existence of alternative ways of being sexual is not reflective of a community with which they can coexist. It is not reflective of a community they can work with to dismantle heteronormativity, patriarchy or amatonormativity. Instead, they are a threat to both their identity, and privilege. And where a threat is seen, it must be countered, or erased.
In the end, it is still a petty argument that is more reflective of their lack of openness and inclusiveness, than it is about Demisexuality. And even if it were true, it simply doesn’t matter.
The Unbearable Incompleteness of Being
It is worth noting that the list of points I am addressing here is by no means complete, nor is it comprehensive. For example, I haven’t personally addressed one of the most common exclusionary talking points, “But you’re not oppressed!”. I feel like this has been extensively covered by other Aspec writers. Examples that currently come to my mind are AsexualityArchive, Elle Rose, and Drew, as well as cheeseanonioncrisps on Tumblr. The latter piece is especially effective at conveying how Aspec folx suffer the effects of Aphobia and discrimination.
My objective is not to argue against directly addressing exclusionary arguments directed at Demisexuals, and other Aspec folx. This work, while hard, is nevertheless important. Instead, I aim to outline an additional approach to interacting with exclusionists, not just to defang their arguments, but to also get at their core normative beliefs and values: amatonormativity, heteronormativity, and patriarchy.
Their narrowly restrictive and discriminatory nature makes these norms are harmful. They are harmful not just to Demisexuals and other Aspec folx, but to those both inside and outside the wider Queer community as well. For example, amatonormativity and heteronormativity are expressed so powerfully in some non-Western cultures that discussions of Asexuality or Demisexuality (or any form of sexual or romantic non-normativity) cannot exist — exerting their own cultural form of Asexual erasure. In North America, “Purity Culture” has left a similar impact on an entire generation of Christians.
I originally wrote this piece with Demisexuality in mind. However, I also want this piece to stand in solidarity with other Grey-Asexuals, Demiromantics, Grey-Aromantics, and those on the Aromantic spectrum. This piece also stands in solidarity with Demis who exist on the intersection of other marginalizations: disabled/neuro-divergent Aspec folx, racialized Aspec folx, and economically disadvantaged Aspec folx. While the term “Aspec” is generally recognized to include them, I am especially compelled to mention their importance in the community of the greater Asexual and Aromantic spectrum. All too often, they are ignored or left behind in discussions of Asexual inclusion.
At this moment, I think of sociology researcher Megan Carroll, who Tweeted that, “We are limited by our language. Sometimes it takes good-faith conversations. Let people be the authorities of their own experience.”
It is important for us to confront the restrictiveness of heternormative and amatonormative beliefs. It is important to be open to good-faith conversations that question those norms. And it is important to honour the lived experiences of marginalized sexual identities. Those are the keys to liberation from oppressive social structures and norms, both now and in the future. I believe this to be true both for Demis and Aspec folx, and the Queer community as a whole.
