Is the Demisexual a Prude in Drag?

There is on this campus a Center that helps students with unusual sexual desires take pride in feeling, and perhaps acting upon, their unusual desires.  Stated dysphemistically, the Pride Center helps these students to overcome shame, since shame naturally attends deviance, be it deviance of a sexual or some other sort. Deviance that is not stigmatized as a mark of inferiority, and as a reason for shame, is normally valorized as a mark of superiority, and a reason for pride.

This is why we all are inclined conceal or flaunt the oddities by which we deviate from the norm.  We conceal the oddities that make us freaks.  We flaunt the oddities that make us special.

A message broadcast by the Pride Center this morning taught me the term “demisexual,” and further investigation taught me that “demisexuality is a sexual orientation where people only experience sexual attraction to folks that they have close emotional connections with.”  In other words, the demisexual is disgusted by raw lust, but is ashamed of this disinclination to rut with total strangers.

Because the outward manifestations of demisexuality are indistinguishable from the modesty and chastity of traditional sexuality, internet authorities stress that demisexuality is a natural “sexual orientation” that has no connection to moral scruples, religious precepts, ideals of romance, or the institution of marriage.  Above all else, a demisexual must not be mistaken for a “prude.”  To make it perfectly clear that demisexuals are not prudes, the doctrine of demisexuality comes with the escape clause of “sexual fluidity.”  Just because a young woman rejected your brutish advances today, there is no reason to suppose she is a “prude” who will recoil from the brutish advances of a stranger tomorrow.

And if that happens, she will not have “chosen” to yield to those brutish advances, but will have drifted into that disposition on the fluid currents of the erotic ocean on which we are all afloat, without rudder, paddle or sail.

* * * * *

Humans are naturally disinclined to have sex with total strangers because the offspring of such couplings have until very recently been less likely to survive.  Consequently, there is strong selective pressure in favor of a demisexual attitude towards sex.  Because this natural disinclination is not perfect, and is indeed subject to freaks of “fluidity,” it was until recently bolstered by moral scruples and religious precepts.  Moral scruples and religious precepts also served to temper the promiscuity of deviants who lacked natural demisexual prudence.

The demisexual attitude is more pronounced in the female, for the obvious reason that the female is more likely to be dragged into an early grave by her bastard child.  The selective pressure against strumpets is greater than the selective pressure against faithless and rambling men.  One can say this without swallowing the Victorian myth of female purity, or the Victorian cope that there would be no fallen women if there were no faithless men.  Nature has a strong prejudice against bastards, a somewhat weaker prejudice against their mothers, and a much weaker prejudice against their dads.  Moral scruples and religious precepts simply ratified and reinforced this prejudice of nature.

When those moral scruples and religious precepts were removed, a certain amount of natural modesty and chastity therefore remained, particularly among young women.  These young women were not so modest or chaste as they would have been with the moral scruples and religious precepts in place, but they were still reluctant to hop into bed with strange men, and they still felt betrayed after they yielded to the raw lust of a one night stand.  The problem for these women (and not a few young men) is that their natural modesty and chastity looks like those outdated moral scruples and religious precepts, and is therefore potentially a cause for shame.  The demisexual “orientation” appears, therefore, to be a device whereby the naturally prudent can escape the shame and stigma that nowadays attach to the sexual repression of the “religious fanatic” and the “prude.”

Demisexuality is a means to signal that, despite appearances to the contrary, one is absolutely not repressing sexual impulses or exercising sexual self-control.  It is a means to represent the natural inhibition of sexual impulses as just another sexual impulse.

10 thoughts on “Is the Demisexual a Prude in Drag?

  1. In my last two or three years of teaching, I got the impression that many if not most coeds were shy of sex and probably chaste. This meant that most of the male undergraduates were likely pornography watchers and onanists. I could criticize the libertinism of the collegiate world in my undergraduate days — the early 1970s. Looking back on it, however, it boasted an admirable calculating quality. A guy flirted with a girl, invited her to dinner and a movie, in hopes, eventually, of a sexual encounter. The women, on the other hand, tended to be strict in their criteria. You could pay for a lot of dinners and movies and still go frustrated. When you got lucky, you could consider yourself to have passed a test. “Going steady” was not yet a relic of the past. I associate promiscuity, which happened because the coeds decided not to adhere to strict criteria anymore, with the 1980s, by the midpoint of which I was married. Let us count the phases: (1) Exercising criteria (the 1970s); (2) Abandoning criteria (the 1980s — and maybe into the early 2000s); and (3) Avoiding sex altogether (2010s to now). Where does it go from here?

    When I think of the pajamas-wearing, unbathed and facially ungroomed boys (yes, boys) in my classes, I can hardly blame the coeds for not wanting to have anything to do with them. Maybe it is not so much prudery as it is disgust.

  2. I think a great deal of todays sexuality culture is caused by female revulsion against the rules of sex after the Revolution. Some of the rules before the Revolution were designed to protect sexually shy people from exploitation by, and direct competition with, the sexual barracudas. As we have often had occasion to lament here at the Orthosphere, liberation always really means liberation of the barracudas.

  3. Pingback: Is the Demisexual a Prude in Drag? | Reaction Times

  4. Must respectfully disagree with the assertion that young college students are not fornicating today.
    Quick Google for the terms Briffault’s Law and Female Hypergamy will bell the cat.
    What has changed in the last decade is that Tinder has instituted a tectonic shift (I don’t think it’s hyperbole at all) in the sexual marketplace. And make no mistake, it *is* and always has been a marketplace. A well-ordered civilization with all its traditions and ‘copes’ is pretty much just an organically evolved means of harnessing sexual energy in the opposite direction to Entropy’s preferred agenda.
    I think if you could transport yourself into the Panopticon’s Tower of Power, you would find that 99.9% of the female student body is banging away like rabbits 24/7 and doing what women have always been able to do, i.e. hiding it well. Being naturally evolved hypergamous females in more of a state of nature (untrammeled by any pesky civilzational norms) than we have seen for millennia they are doing what females have always done when able to: #@$%ing the top 10% of males. Most of us were born during the tail end of the Old Dispensation — designed to *force* women to be monogamous and not willingly become harem members for the top few percent of males. It was called Civilization.
    Now ask yourself, do the top 10% of males (money, charisma, LOOKS) ever darken the door of an academic scribbler (sorry :P) at The Orthosphere? So I’ve no doubt that the hang dog males who did darken your doors weren’t getting much nookie at all.
    Tinder permits every female today (even pretty undesirable ones) to get swamped in male attention. Dopamine hits, aside, they’re always going to have more handsome and wealthier geographically nearby ‘likes’ in their hand-held ‘Box of Cocks’ (for that is what their smartphone is) who outscore the meatspace individual who works up the courage to say hi in the cafeteria or library.
    Haven’t mentioned the various websites and apps which make amateur prostitution and amateur voyeurism frictionless.
    This is not limited to the West. Been around a bit and wherever I go, I notice that female university students tend to have the latest laptops and phones whereas the males generally do not. Are they all being paid for by Doting Daddy? I think not. It even goes to the increasing over-representation of females at undergraduate level — they have more ways (nudge nudge) of affording university than straight males do.
    Not going to end well.
    Apologies if this sounds like a rant. No idea how the genie could be put back in the bottle. Hanging Margaret Atwood might be fun though.

    • I make no claim to first-hand knowledge, and have not conducted a field study in the wild, but I sense polarization rather than a wholesale shift to general promiscuity. This is particularly the case with young men, perhaps for the reason you name. I think the Darwinian argument for relative female modesty is strong, although I also understand the cuckoldry counterargument. One objection to your argument for universal whoredom is that the universal whoredom of secretly easy women has been a theme of male pornography since forever. In fact, the etymology of the word pornography could be construed as “a description of universal whoredom.”

  5. Hearing about these new orientations that try to place identities (thus capable of supposedly analyzing through the lense of power/oppression) on basic variations of human emotional expression always gives me a big laugh due to the absurdity of it.

    • Absurdity can be a disguise that causes us to laugh at what what we should take seriously. Crazy ideas are very often a Trojan horse and deadly serious people often hide in a pack of “crazies.” This is the sexual doctrine that is being taught to your children, and you will be identified as irrational and hateful if you oppose it. A doctrine can become dominant while people laugh at it.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.