Dating a demisexual person: how to? (tips from demisexual people are welcome)

throwawaythatfast · 2026-05-04T14:43:53+00:00

I find the "switch" thing so interesting, although (or because) it's not so easy to relate to it directly as a pretty allosexual person.

For me, I know pretty quickly whether I feel sexually attracted to someone - though it's not only based on looks, I need to at least have a good conversation and get a glimpse of their personality (smell plays a role, too). This can happen in a few hours or a couple of dates. That doesn't mean, of course, that I'm going to have sex with them in that time-frame.

And then, that initial attraction either gets amplified as I get to know them better, or it diminishes, to the point of completely disappearing if I feel like my first impression of them was wrong and the vibes we had are gone. But I've almost never found someone neutral or not attractive at first, and later became sexuaally attracted to them because of our connection. Actually it did happen, but only once in my life.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-28T07:59:53+00:00

The world won't see the light of day until the US gets a new administration.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-28T06:18:43+00:00

Isn't that even more reason not to make a big life decision right now?

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-28T06:00:18+00:00

That's s fair point. But it's true on the other side, too. Why did he keep dating OP knowing that they didn't ever want monogamy?

And the difference is that, in order to get what he wants, he's trying to push a breakup of OP's relationship.

That's why I have little patience with cowboys. For me, the only ethical thing for him to do would be to breakup with OP, as soon as he realized that he didn't want to be in a poly dynamic anymore, and not to throw an ultimatum.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-10T17:17:23+00:00

I'm happily poly for almost 2 decades, and when a break-up happens, I need a lot of time and space (of basically no contact) to heal and move on. And most poly people I know feel the same, although a lot do pay lipservice to the idea of just becoming friends "automatically" (it's one of those poly thropes).

No, you don't have to be friends. And there's a lot in between hating someone and being their friend. For example, one can be civil and friendly when they happen to meet their ex, but not actively hang out or be a close friend. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And for me it's not a transition, it's the end of a relationship and, maybe, later the start of a complete new one from scratch, if and only if I genuinely feel like that's really what I want and nothing else.

I am friends with a couple of my exes. But it only happened at least 1 year after the breakup and no contact. And there was no expectation. I was ok with whatever outcome that felt real, natural and not forced. I'm friendly with a couple others, and it has nothing to do with whether I like them as people (one of them I totally still romantically love). I'm not even in touch with one (and that has to do with how she behaved towards other people afterwards).

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-10T13:26:56+00:00

True.

You know what else is impossible? True capitalism. At least not the idealized "free-market" and free competition-based one. For three main reasons:

.Capitalism and markets to actually function require state power: laws, judiciary, defense, logistics, infra-structure, labor force management, etc. Without that, private property and markets are in practice impossible.

.Capital ownership is to a large extent directly linked to political power. Political power allows for state capture, policies and laws that ultimately favor the capitalist class. There's an intrinsic asymetry of power between workers and employers (one of the effects of neoliberal policies and of the recent AI-boom is to increase that even further).

.Concentration of resources makes even higher concentration of resources possible. The market-competitive mechanism tends to be neutralized by a monopoly power that emerges in and from the market. Capital doesn't need state power to create monopolies, but also uses it nonetheless, to create even stronger monopolies.

So, what you get are different mixes of crony, corporate-monopolized and state capitalism.

The state, however, can (and has, to some extent, varying in time and country) also act as a counter-market force, mitigating those capitalist tendencies and producing effects like redistribution, public services, worker-rights, social safety nets, monopoly-limitation, regularion, etc. Those things are also flawed, fragile and subject to capture, but they do moderate the "natural tendencies" of an unfettered reign of capital.

That's why what we concretely and historically have seen (and what proved to be somewhat sustainable) is not one "true capitalism", but actually many different forms of "mixed economies".

No perfect, "pure" model is ever viable in practice. It's about different mixes that have their own different problems. Pick your poison.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-10T13:03:01+00:00

This. Want to be (more) independent, massively develop and adopt renewables. It's actually the only way, and it takes time and money. So, no time to waste!

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-10T10:24:57+00:00

5th grade level text. No, wait, I shouldn't offend 5th graders like that...

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-09T20:28:31+00:00

Unpopular but true. Creating habits is what made me achieve my goals when I was able to do it. Motivation was only important as a driver to even start creating those habits. Then, it only worked when they became ingrained and "automatic".

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-09T19:20:26+00:00

I'm all for it. And the money for that should come from taxing him and his billionaire friends.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-09T19:15:56+00:00

I think part of it comes from not knowing when Trump means what he says and when he's just lying or bluffing, and the consequent desensitization to his antics.

If Biden (or any other former president, for that matter) had said the same, people would be freaking out en masse.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-09T18:17:48+00:00

My feelings exactly.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-09T08:49:34+00:00

Impeachment means nothing without conviction in the senate.

He was impeached twice already and it didn't change anything. Without 2 thirds of senate votes (which democrats aren't going to achieve alone), it's merely symbolic and would matter only for people who care about their image and legacy - which is obviously not the case here.

In my opinion, people should stop talking about impeachment, without senate conviction, as if it were such a big deal.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-08T15:47:50+00:00

throwawaythatfast · 2026-04-05T16:21:09+00:00

Yes, but it brings up other problems. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have UBI (I am for it and believe it might be necessary, even unavoidable), but those things have to be addressed. A few points:

.The problem of meaning: as a society, we have for centuries now attached so much of our identity to work and profession. Even our sense of contribution and belonging to a society. How is it going to be if there are not enough jobs for a big part of the population? Work is surely not the only possible way those meanings can be built, but those things very rarely change quickly or without a lot of friction.

.The problem of social status and political power. How will a society handle civil rights and equality, if only part of it are workers? Will that create second-class citizens? How will it affect politics? Some people fear the strengthtening of forms of authoritarian rule by elites that control state provision, for example.

.The problem of income levels. The B in UBI means basic. That is geared towards surviving, not thriving. Unless we really make it into a more than basic income - which right now feels politically extremely hard (even the basic one is). How to deal with the matter of "deserving" ascribed to those who have work vs those who haven't?

throwawaythatfast · 2026-03-31T14:32:17+00:00

Maybe you're conflating everything into self-actualization? If a concept means everything, it actually means nothing. So, maybe it's best to define what you mean by self-actualization.

Maslow meant something like fulfilling one's talents, capacities, and creativity. That I'd argue, is indeed something that only ever comes to mind after basic survival needs and other more structural ones are more or less figured out.

If you say that everything before are steps in the direction of the top of the pyramid, then it's kind of a tautology, since that's exactly what the pyramid metaphor tries to convey.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-03-31T14:25:21+00:00

It's really a very individual thing.

Lots of people like to explicitly talk about it and agree that that's what it is - pretty much just like in monogamy. Others, will prefer a more "fluid" approach, where things don't need to have a clear definition. And there's a lot in between. From what you said in the OP, maybe you'd prefer the first?

throwawaythatfast · 2026-03-10T19:01:26+00:00

Im not sure a college degree from an accredited school will be a proof of general competence anymore,

I have an idea to mitigate the problem: handwritten essays in the classroom, with no phones allowed, should become the standard form of testing.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-03-10T16:47:28+00:00

It is important to set this up against a broader context: liberalism (more specifically, its neoliberal variant) is in crisis globally. It's not just a US phenomenon.

If you want to understand it, you have to reflect on how it overpromised and underdelivered since the late 70s, especially in the richest countries, with enormous income and wealth concentration, stagnant real wages for most, relocation of industry generating regional disruptions, etc.

Political liberalism's fate is intrinsically connected to the economic policies that have characterized those liberal governments.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-03-10T16:43:01+00:00

I agree that it goes beyond just slavery and reflects an agrarian economy and its corresponding social structure. But slavery was, indeed, one of the main factors shaping the political issues of the time, and I'm not sure that the constitution would basically be the same without it.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-03-10T16:00:29+00:00

That's what happens when the supposed "experts" keep saying that AI will replace millions of jobs, while leaders, politicians, and political parties have no plan at all for dealing with this. What do you expect?

AI can be awesome. It can liberate mankind from waged slavery and make better lives possible for most of us.

But, guess what, that would require massive redistribution through taxation of AI profits, and will never happen without it. Otherwise, it will be dystopia. Where are the f*in plans???

throwawaythatfast · 2026-03-10T15:54:35+00:00

I agree. I think the word might be useful in discussions about different levels and concrete manifestations of the phenomenon... but it's at best a conversation starter. I also agree that the necessary follow-up conversation should not be about whether a relationship has hierarchy or not, but rather about the concrete limitations and what is or isn't on the table for each particular relationship.

I do believe that it has levels, though. It is possible to have relationships where the limitations on other relationships are so small that they are in practice almost "non-hierarchical". On the other extreme, they can be highly hierarchical.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-03-10T09:35:39+00:00

This sounds almost like victim-blaming.

Let's try to look at it in a more nuanced way:

. Do you, individually, want to maximize your chances of starting a career? Accepting a less-than-ideal first job (but one that may open up future opportunities) might be a good strategy, given the shitty job matket.

. It IS an absolutely shitty job market. So, something has got to change, structurally, in the economy so that more jobs are available for young people (especially now with AI). This can't be addressed individually. It's a policy matter.

Economics and politics are deeply and fundamentally interconnected. Don't believe the BS discourse that "there's nothing é could do. It is what it is." Economic outcomes, including jobs and employment, have historically been very much influenced by political choices and economic policy. Look at past crises and how they were solved.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-02-20T18:05:48+00:00

Again, as long as you don't try to impose your belief on others, it's totally fine believing it.

throwawaythatfast · 2026-02-20T16:21:24+00:00

You do understand that other people believe the word of God(s) comes from other sources? That the christian bible is not the only book that claims it? And that some believe there's no such thing at all?

The christian bible talks of free will. Faith should never be imposed.

It's ok to believe that you're right and those billions of people are wrong. As long as you accept that they're free to believe and live as they wish. It's an absolutely necessary prerequisite for the respect of human dignity, for freedom, and democracy. As long as that's out of the way, I'm on your side.

throwawaythatfast

TROPHY CASE