I think the funniest identity label of all is demisexuality. Which is having to know someone in some way before you're sexually attracted to them rather than just being attracted to them solely physically even though I think this is almost certainly impossible to measure and distinguish in any way that's not projection. I was just looking it up to make sure I was remembering the correct term for it and this is on the Wiki page:
Anyway, you cannot convince me this is not almost nearly everyone because nobody truly has "primary sexual attraction" defined this way:
All this identity shit is just coming up with overly rigid labels for the fact that people are individuals and individuals differ. They see everything in reverse and think individuals exist solely as a subset of groups. Entirely backwards. That's why it needs to be rejected rather than dishonestly treated as legitimate.
edit: To clarify, the reason I say it is impossible is because all kinds of choices a person makes informs you about them visually, clothing, styling, facial expressions, the way they hold themselves, etc. It's like constructing an overly autistic reading of humans in order to say everyone "normal" is purely reading the "primary" characteristics when they're not. It's eliminating all of known psychology to hypothesize about how everyone must do things in order to differentiate themselves that's entirely projection in the first place. You already know my objections about this on another similar topic.
If you see Sydney Sweeney and she makes a stink face while filthy like a homeless drug addict or you see Gal Gadot and she's murdering children this will affect your attraction but won't be "at first sight" because time is experienced linearly. They're trying to treat everything as if there's some kind of possible "pure information state" that's accessible when it's not. And then they're trying to impose this unrealistic model on everyone when the problem is that their model sucks not that it's correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demisexuality#Common_misconceptions_and_sexual_activities wrote:A misconception is that demisexual individuals cannot engage in casual sex.[17] Demisexuality refers to how an individual experiences sexual attraction; it does not describe a choice or an action, but describes a feeling instead.[4][18] While it is common for demisexuals to not desire sex without feeling sexually attracted to the other person, this is not required to be considered demisexual. Many demisexuals may choose to engage in casual sex even without experiencing sexual attraction towards their sexual partner.[19]
Anyway, you cannot convince me this is not almost nearly everyone because nobody truly has "primary sexual attraction" defined this way:
Quote:Primary sexual attraction: sexual attraction towards people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell). Primary sexual attraction is characterized as being experienced at first sight.
Secondary sexual attraction: sexual attraction towards people based on information that is not instantly available (such as personality, life experiences, talents, etc.); how much a person needs to know about the other and for how long they need to know about them before secondary sexual attraction develops varies from person to person.[15][5]
After secondary sexual attraction is developed, demisexuals are not only aroused by personality traits. They also may or may not experience arousal or desire based on the physical traits of the persons whom they have already experience secondary sexual attraction towards.[16]
All this identity shit is just coming up with overly rigid labels for the fact that people are individuals and individuals differ. They see everything in reverse and think individuals exist solely as a subset of groups. Entirely backwards. That's why it needs to be rejected rather than dishonestly treated as legitimate.
edit: To clarify, the reason I say it is impossible is because all kinds of choices a person makes informs you about them visually, clothing, styling, facial expressions, the way they hold themselves, etc. It's like constructing an overly autistic reading of humans in order to say everyone "normal" is purely reading the "primary" characteristics when they're not. It's eliminating all of known psychology to hypothesize about how everyone must do things in order to differentiate themselves that's entirely projection in the first place. You already know my objections about this on another similar topic.
If you see Sydney Sweeney and she makes a stink face while filthy like a homeless drug addict or you see Gal Gadot and she's murdering children this will affect your attraction but won't be "at first sight" because time is experienced linearly. They're trying to treat everything as if there's some kind of possible "pure information state" that's accessible when it's not. And then they're trying to impose this unrealistic model on everyone when the problem is that their model sucks not that it's correct.
10 users liked this post: