"And I observe that not a single person here has even bothered to try and defend identities like demisexuality, which is the latest iteration of this."
Why does demisexuality need defending? The 'attacks' on demisexuality are usually something along the lines of "That's so normal that it doesn't need a term for it." Which doesn't seem like an "attack" at all. It would be like saying "apples don't exist. I eat them all the time. They're just a specific type of fruit."
Some people don't experience primary sexual attraction. They don't look at porn. They don't know if they're attracted to someone when they first meet. But they can develop attraction over longer periods of time.
Some people do experience primary sexual attraction. They are capable of enjoying visual pornography. They know when they meet a person whether or not that person is physically attractive to them. They may be more likely to decide whether or not to have a relationship with someone after just a date or two. etc. (This very last part is conjecture. I haven't verified this.)
I think sometimes "demisexual" is used in highly sexual cultures to mean "doesn't want to have sex on the first date." Which, perhaps, dilutes the term. But there are lots of terms which survive such dilution and are still useful. I don't see the downside of someone having a very discerning vocabulary to describe their sexual interests, except that it will be harder to communicate with people who don't have a similarly discerning vocabulary. But selectivity is not always a negative, either.
"Also, the entire American civil rights apparatus is based on the idea that sexuality is immutable - like race. "
I do agree with this, as regards gay rights especially. It was a deep and pervasive mistake to try to defend gay rights based on immutability of behavior rather than something the more solid ground of bodily autonomy and individual consent.
"And I observe that not a single person here has even bothered to try and defend identities like demisexuality, which is the latest iteration of this."
Why does demisexuality need defending? The 'attacks' on demisexuality are usually something along the lines of "That's so normal that it doesn't need a term for it." Which doesn't seem like an "attack" at all. It would be like saying "apples don't exist. I eat them all the time. They're just a specific type of fruit."
Some people don't experience primary sexual attraction. They don't look at porn. They don't know if they're attracted to someone when they first meet. But they can develop attraction over longer periods of time.
Some people do experience primary sexual attraction. They are capable of enjoying visual pornography. They know when they meet a person whether or not that person is physically attractive to them. They may be more likely to decide whether or not to have a relationship with someone after just a date or two. etc. (This very last part is conjecture. I haven't verified this.)
I think sometimes "demisexual" is used in highly sexual cultures to mean "doesn't want to have sex on the first date." Which, perhaps, dilutes the term. But there are lots of terms which survive such dilution and are still useful. I don't see the downside of someone having a very discerning vocabulary to describe their sexual interests, except that it will be harder to communicate with people who don't have a similarly discerning vocabulary. But selectivity is not always a negative, either.
"Also, the entire American civil rights apparatus is based on the idea that sexuality is immutable - like race. "
I do agree with this, as regards gay rights especially. It was a deep and pervasive mistake to try to defend gay rights based on immutability of behavior rather than something the more solid ground of bodily autonomy and individual consent.