I‘m not putting this in the main tag but I‘m so annoyed by people taking Fizz being uncomfortable with Mammon‘s insistence on people fucking toys with his likeness as a sign that he‘s ace… I mean, I don‘t know any allo-sexual person who would be cool with this and it feels strange that people are conflating somebody who‘d like to have agency over his own image and not be a literal sex object with somebody who doesn‘t experience sexual attraction…. (It also comes pretty close to the whole thing with victims of sexual abuse or orientation being portrayed as sexless and/or sexually broken)

I mean, sure, there are plenty of kinky asexual people, just like there are aromantic people who write love stories (*cough*), but it makes me feel weird to think people believe allosexual people would be ok with the shit mammon is pulling…

Double Trouble Sexual Orientation Headcanons

I don’t know what inspired me to make this post, I just wanted to share my thoughts and the general vibes of various sexuality headcanons about our favorite enby lizard. Keep in mind, these are just my opinions, and they’re not backed up by evidence. This is all in good fun.

Under a cut because this might get long

Yes, I know that Jacob Tobia referred to them as gay in a tweet, and the SPOP Wiki lists them as Achillean based on this, but I’d argue this doesn’t technically count as canon, since it was never established in the show itself (the only possible mention being them calling Sea Hawk “Hot Stuff”), so I think people’s headcanons and non-achillean ships are perfectly valid. That said, I’m not against the idea of them being gay, and I can definitely see it.

Gay/Achillean: This definitely holds up. DT is a theatre kid, after all, and we all know theatre kids are gay (joking). They have big twink energy, and of course, the classic “That’s your cue, Hot Stuff.” Some of my favorite DT ships are with men (Bow, Wrong Hordak, Peekablue, and Sea Hawk). However, I still think they have good chemistry with Catra, and I personally like the headcanon that they had a crush on her and may have felt bitter at being second-best to Adora, thus fueling a bit of the meaner parts of their betrayal. I still imagine them with a preference for men, but I don’t think women are out of the running.

Lesbian/Sapphic: This one’s a lot less common. I’ve actually only seen one person headcanon this, though there may be a few more. They don’t quite give me lesbian vibes, but they do seem to have chemistry with Catra, and I like several ships involving DT with a woman (such as Catra, Adora, and Scorpia).

Bi/Pan/Omni/Poly: This is my personal headcanon and has been ever since I got to know the character. They just seem like the kind of person who has lots of affection to go around (whether this is romantic or sexual is up to you). I lean more towards bi or omni for them because, as I said, I feel like they have a preference for men, but I feel like they get crushes on women, too. Though, let’s be real, it’s more likely for people to crush on DT than the other way around. They KNOW they’re the hottest bitch on Etheria!

Aspec/Arospec: Another one of my personal favorites. Yes, I’m biased, since I’m ace, but COME ON, it’d be such a glorious defiance of expectations and stereotypes, and DT would live for the chaos they’d cause by oozing sexual energy and not being interested in doing a thing about it. They’d be this untouchable, irresistible them fatale and OWN IT. But I feel like they’d also be fun as an aroace because of their ability to read people. They’ve got it down to a science, and logically analyzing romance/sexual attraction in an attempt to understand it is SUCH an aroace mood. They also seem like the type who just wouldn’t be interested in dating, and as I said, it’d be great if this gorgeous, smooth-talking, flirtatious lizard in a skin-tight outfit wasn’t interested in sex. What a power move! Of course, you could also see them as ace and alloromantic, gray ace, demi, allosexual aro, etc. I like the idea of aroace DT as much as ace DT who DOES date. As for their intimate life, maybe they do, maybe they don’t, maybe they do and just don’t care much about it one way or the other, maybe they do only under specific circumstances—there’s a whole variety of ways an aspec and/or arospec DT can be written, and I think it’s one of the most interesting interpretations of this character!

Polyamorous: I mean. Obviously. DT is so easy to ship, so you might as well make them date everyone XD. But seriously, I love this headcanon and think it fits them very well, and it’s one that I include in daydreams and the few fanfic things I’ve written.

you also get sollux. thoughts on the bigender ever

sexuality headcanon: bisexual . is there another answer i can give to this . i think he is also aroacespec but doesnt label himself that way . like he acknowledges he is not alloromantic + allosexual he just doesnt care for labelling that part of himself gender headcanon: bigender . again is there another answer i can give to this . he / she / it + duality themed neos a ship i have with said character: arasolsweep . i know i said arasol for aradia but theyre so important to me still . since i gave a memey answer in aradias i guess i will explain more . i think aradia and solluxs relationship is unimportant but in a way that it is inherently important . if that makes sense . they are not plot relevant and they are happy that way . and thats what makes them so interesting . they are both tied to inevitability and fate and they decide to fuck off together and essentially have their own filler episode with eachother . two characters that clearly care about eachother that go from having solidarity in how their fate controls them and how inevitable everything is to having solidarity in just fucking doing whatever ? hell yes . hell fucking yes . they are intentionally unspecific redrom i think a brotp i have with said character: it and kanaya . they dont interact much but the interactions they do have are so funny all the time . they are best friends and they are going to make fun of you and say sorry afterwards ( with varying degrees of sincerity ) . honorable mention is it and terezi theyre funny a notp i have with said character: erisol is way too hard to get right i do not like it 99% of the time and that % is just too high for me to not kind of hate it . i am not an erisol enjoyer in the slightest sorry . if you can enjoy it good for you it is just not my thing a random headcanon: i think she would run the earth c equivalent of gamebro . doesnt take it seriously but definitely passionate about it . general opinion over said character: funny guy . i dont have too many thoughts about him but i think he is underrated . also like the most normal troll straight up when people say ' oh yeah all the trolls were awful and problematic ' i am always so confused because the worst crime sollux committed was just .. be kinda a dick sometimes before apologising . he has every mental illness

So I was going to save this for a fic, but who knows when I’m going to pull myself off my ass and actually write a fic that includes this scene (also I can’t stop thinking about this). So now you get my interpretation of the Gwen & Jack scene in KKBB.

Gwen’s expression after she says “That’s an engagement ring, that is” is, in my opinion, a bit of a jab at Jack’s desertion in a “Oh this? Well you know, you leave and you miss things” kind of way. Also that she didn’t discuss it until he brought it up always felt a bit like her saying “You’re not entitled to know about my life.”

And the big line: “No one else would have me.” Maybe I’m projecting too much onto Gwen (I don’t think I am), but I never read that line as “I guess I like him enough but I wouldn’t have said yes if I thought someone else would offer” (with the implication that she’s settling for Rhys) but more like “Of course I said yes, not only do I love him but I don’t think anyone else could love me enough to offer” (with the implication that she’s very aware of her flaws and that she doesn’t think anyone else would settle for her, especially with the way that Torchwood has changed her and her life).

To me, this never felt like an “I’m engaged, are you going to do anything about it?” because she wasn’t the one who brought it up; if he hadn’t happened to feel the ring, I don’t think the conversation would have even veered into that direction.

And also, so what if she’s also attracted to Jack or would be interested in other circumstances? Allosexual people feeling attraction while in committed relationships doesn’t make them a bad person. People seeking emotional and/or physical comfort from people other than their their romantic/sexual partners doesn’t make them a bad person; regardless of passing or past fancy. The kiss on her cheek and the way she closes her eyes after what looks to be a little surprise/resistance?  To me, her expression always read a little bit like forgiveness, like she was accepting Jack back into her life despite the hurt of being abandoned because how could she not after finding out what he had been through? So what if she takes comfort in it or maybe she enjoyed it in a slightly more than platonic way? Good for her; more people should feel like they can and should receive affection in a manner that works for them from people they want to receive affection from. Regardless of how she felt about it, both their actions are well within the boundaries of respectful to her relationship with Rhys. Also if you want to fault Gwen for this being more than platonic, you can’t, or at least you definitely can’t fault her more than Jack (and I’m definitely in the camp of nothing in this exchange is something that you can fault Gwen with), because Jack initiated and he now knows that not only is she in a committed relationship, but she’s also engaged; but in my opinion, the same defense applies to Jack: So what if he’s attracted to her? Does that mean he’s not allowed to be her friend and show her love and affection?

Anyways, love in all it’s forms is a beautiful thing and we should celebrate that instead of turning love into a nasty competition that we use as a cover for misogynistic double standards. (◡‿◡✿)

(Side note: Of course Gwen gets to feel abandoned and yes, those feelings should be taken as seriously and treated with as much respect as the hurt Ianto felt. There isn’t some hierarchy of suffering or set of prerequisites to feeling (a certain magnitude of) hurt. Just because Ianto was sleeping with Jack doesn’t mean that he’s the one who is most justified in feeling hurt or that he gets to hurt the most; it’s just different.)

If you had sex and you're pregnant you can't be ace and ace people don't belong in the lbgt community. LMAO

Oh look, someone just googled “ace exclusionist rhetoric” and copypasted it into my inbox!

Asexual means the lack of sexual attraction, and not necessarily dictate sexual activity. That’s like telling a Bi or Pan person that if they’ve ever kissed/had sex with someone of the “opposite” sex they’re hetero. Or telling them that if they kiss someone of the same sex they’re gay/lesbian. Sexual activity =/= sexual attraction.

And maybe if you’re using the acronym “lgbt” 100% literally, it doesn’t include ace people, but then you’d also be excluding intersex folks, pan folks, polyamorous folks, and people who are not cis or straight but don’t align with strict categories.

I know I don’t have to explain myself to anyone, but on the off-chance that you’re willing to listen (which I unfortunately doubt due to the fact of you being ace exclusionist to begin with):

I don’t experience sexual attraction, but that doesn’t mean that I’m sex repulsed. Even if I didn’t personally enjoy physical intimacy, which is none of anyone’s dang business except me and my husband, there are plenty of reasons an ace might engage in sex. One of which could be having kids. But also sometimes ace people who are not sex-averse or sex repulsed will engage in sex for their partner’s benefit, and/or for the emotional closeness. Or, more commonly, sexual activity and physical intimacy can be physically enjoyable for the ace person, even if they go about their day and never experience attraction ever in their lives.

Idk if you’ve ever heard the donut analogy, but it goes like this:

Imagine sex as a plate of free donuts on the table. Some folks have the urge to grab a donut and eat it. Those people are allosexual, aka not asexual; they experience sexual attraction. In other words, they see a delicious looking donut and get the urge to eat it. Asexual folks would be better described as not having the urge to eat a donut at all. They may enjoy donuts if they decide to eat one, they may hate donuts, they may never want to taste a donut to begin with, or they tasted a donut a couple times and decided donuts are not for them. They may eat a donut on occasion despite being neither here nor there generally, or they may enjoy a single specific kind of donut, or only in certain circumstances, or only when they share it with a specific person, etc. None of their general opinions on donuts-once-eaten affect the fact that they don’t experience the urge to snatch one up off the table.

It’s not a perfect analogy, but I find it’s a good starting place to understanding asexuality. Because as an ace person, it’s hard for me to accurately describe sexual attraction, because I don’t experience it. That has no bearing on my personal decision to engage in sex or not. And maybe for a person who does experience sexual attraction, that’s just beyond comprehension, why anyone would want to have sex without first having attraction, but I honestly can’t explain it because I don’t understand attraction. Like, you don’t even know this person, or don’t even know them that well, yet your body wants you to engage with them intimately? Or you think about kissing them? I’m honestly not sure what it’s like despite having a more-or-less scientific understanding of how it’s supposed to work. It just seems foreign to me, but that’s okay, because to each their own and people can’t change how they’re made.

I am honestly not sure how much of an impact all this will actually have on you or your opinions, because honestly this does seem like a bait post just to get a rise out of me. But I hope that you can reconsider your position of telling people that their identity is invalid based on your own limited understanding of something that you clearly don’t personally experience. And as a courtesy, I’ll go ahead and let you know:

If you come back in my inbox again with ace exclusionist rhetoric, or trying to tell me the identity it took years for me to finally realize is invalid simply because of the best thing that’s ever happened to me (aka my husband, who has been on this journey of self-discovery with me since we were just friends), you’re getting blocked. I gave you the benefit of the doubt this time, against a bit of better judgement based on how purposefully degrading and confrontational your wording was; if you push that aside and continue in being rude and hateful and close-minded, I’m going to do the best thing for both of us and sever contact. Or you could just block me yourself, because not only are you not going to change my mind on my own sexuality (seriously, what was your objective here?), you’re not changing my mind on aces in the community.

Asexual people are not heterosexual/straight, because they don’t experience sexual attraction, therefore they belong in the community. Don’t like it? Get off my blog, or I’ll remove you, even if I have to do it one IP address at a time.

Fight me and my married, sexually active, proudly asexual pregnant belly on that one.

I'm really sorry in advance because this is probably a really ignorant/rude/maybe even somewhat offensive question, but I was wondering whether aroSPEC allosexuals (i.e. demiromantic, greyromantic, etc.) counted as aro allos? I'm assuming yes, because usually 'aro' in this kind of case is used as an umbrella term, but I've only ever really seen people talk about the aro allo experience in reference to experiencing no romantic attraction ever, so I wanted to double check whether my gut was right.

There’s nothing even slightly rude or offensive about the way you’ve asked this question, anon. You’re polite and respectful; you just want understanding and confirmation. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I’m not going to say I speak for the whole community, because I don’t, but I’d be seriously displeased if I saw someone argue that the aro part of “allo-aro” doesn’t include all folks on the aromantic spectrum (if that’s how they identify). I mean “what the hell this is not what this community is about” displeased. All aro-spectrum-identified folks are welcome.

I think we use “allo-aro” to mean “allosexual and aromantic-spec”. Unfortunately, I think we have the same problem as with words like “aro-ace” where we can’t as easily add the “-spec” on the end to be clear that it means everyone under those umbrellas. But even if it isn’t spoken or written, it’s there.

In my opinion, “allo-aro” needs a little vagueness about it: there’ll be folks with fluid orientations that include ace-spec identities (hello, me) and folks on the ace-spectrum who need support for experiences of sexual attraction that are currently not provided in ace-spec spaces along with people who fit the strict definition (some shape of aro-spec, completely allosexual). I look at “allo-aro” as an identifier that’s less about a strict definition of attraction and more a way to communicate aro-specs who need a sense of community and connection around the fact that we are on the aromantic spectrum and that is shaped by experiences of sexual attraction–that it’s more about what we need than it is about who we are. Some ace-spec aro-spec folks may need, or want, to participate in our spaces because they’re just not being supported in their sexual attractions in ace-spec spaces.

Yes, most of the time “allo-aro” means “being on the aromantic spectrum while experiencing allosexual attraction”, but I think it can also mean “and folks on the aromantic spectrum who do experience some form of sexual attraction and find it an important part of their aromanticism in ways not accommodated in ace-spec spaces”, too. I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I think that allowing people to self-identify with the labels that suit their needs is far better than being really restrictive about who is and isn’t precisely fitting the label.

I think most of us don’t see “allo-aro” as an identifier the same way “aro-ace” is. I’m abrosexual aromantic; that’s my identity. Allo-aro is just the word that I use to connect me to a category of certain other aro-spec experiences and identities. It’s a word I use to give me connection to other people and to counteract a de-centering we experience: with a term that connects us, we can tag our content, find each other, speak more loudly about what we need. I think this gives us room to play with it.

Perhaps a good working definition is “aro-spec person who experiences sexual attraction and needs this to be centred alongside their aromantic-spectrum experiences” because I think that centering is key to why we’re gathering under this label. It’s less about experiencing allosexual attraction and more about sexual attraction needing to be a factor in how our aromantic-spectrum identities are accepted and understood in a-spec and aro-spec spaces.

(I mean, I don’t identify as allo-aro anywhere but inside a-spec spaces; it feels like a label specific to this community and its activism.)

So, if I feel this way about people who experience sexual attraction and are also ace-spec but need allo-aro community, connection and information, it’d be absurd to say that aro-spectrum people aren’t allo-aro.

Does this make sense, anon? A lot of this isn’t what you asked for; I’m just using it as an excuse to mention that I see “allo-aro” as a somewhat vague category and I’m fine with ace-spec people who need to really centre their sexual attraction experiences sheltering under this particular umbrella, too. Other people can feel differently and that’s okay, but for the purposes of this blog–if you want to be in this space because it’s giving you something you’re not getting anywhere else, it’s yours.

It’s important to say that we need more conversations by aro-spec people in being on the aromantic spectrum and experiencing sexual attraction, and I hope this can grow and develop as allo-aro as a space also grows and develops. Right now, we’re so new and small that our conversations aren’t yet as diverse as they should be, but I hope people do feel welcome in exploring the many shapes of what allo-aro looks like, because we need that exploration.

That you had to ask this question, anon, is something I consider a failure on our part, so I hope aro-spectrum folks in the allo-aro community know that they’re allo-aro, they’re wanted and important, and we’re here to listen to you talk about your experiences.

Few months back I told a friend of mine I’ve never felt sexual attraction and she told me “you’ll change your mind after you have sex”. When I talk to my sisters, they say that they don’t understand asexuals because “why would they have sex if they don’t like it” “because it’s the attraction they don’t feel, not the desire” “then it’s like rape”. And today another friend asked me how is it for aces’ SOs if they may not want sex, so I’m asking you, if you had non-ace partners, how is it?

Wowwww that is a cavalcade of acephobic bullshit you’ve been getting. :\

I actually haven’t ever dated a non-ace person seriously enough for this to come up--the two people I’ve dated seriously at all, one I knew was ace from the start and one told me afterward, after I had come out as ace, that they thought they were probably on the gray-ace spectrum too, so that was never a big conflict. 

But hey, I’m not gonna let that stop me from having opinions!

Because, guess what, sexual incompatibilities happen in all kinds of relationships. Allosexual people can and do have different needs for sex! Two ACE people can have different boundaries or levels of interest in sex or other bodily intimacies! The sort of classic toxic version of this is men constantly pressuring their female partners for sex and women sort of gatekeeping access to their bodies, sometimes giving in and sometimes successfully fending off the pressure. Does that mean that no heterosexual couple can ever have a mutually satisfying and fully consenting sex life? Pretty sure the answer is no. 

I think as an ace person it’s important to be honest and up front about your level of interest in having a sexual component in a romantic relationship, and you don’t necessarily have to say I’m asexual to explain this. You can say “I haven’t been sexual with previous partners so I want to take things slow” or “I don’t have a lot of interest in sex and won’t want to have it very often” or whatever gets your actual point across in terms of what you want from a relationship. That’s honestly a lot more relevant (and first-few-dates-appropriate) than trying to explain the whole gamut of what asexuality is and trying to explain your entire history of non-attraction and how you masturbate or don’t, etc. 

And if that’s a dealbreaker for a potential partner, so be it. People have different needs, and someone who needs a lot of sex with their partner deserves to be with someone who is compatible with them every bit as much as an asexual person deserves a partner who respects their boundaries. 

And if it’s not a dealbreaker, and for some non-zero number of people it won’t be, then the two of you can find a way to make that work for you and tbh it’s none of anybody else’s business what that turns out to be as long as it works for you. Some people have romantic relationships that never involve sex. Some people find compromises--and there’s more room to compromise, if you’re open and communicative, than just “how often do we have sex”, because maybe you’re more comfortable with some sex acts than others, or there are things you can do with a partner that they find satisfyingly sexy and intimate that e.g. don’t involve your naked body at all.  (And, too, you can find ways to enjoy whatever level of intimacy and closeness that’s right for you without it being necessarily sexual, or necessarily some stereotypical version of sex.)

So, yeah. I’m... pretty sure that’s how it can work! Not necessarily easy or automatic, but definitely possible.

Garcia Flynn!

For you and the three Anons!

How I feel about this character:  Season 1: “Hm.  Antagonist/possible anti-hero who’s refreshingly self aware enough to recognize how garbagey he and his actions truly are, but OMG he keeps doing it anyway.  Sir, you are trash.  Intriguing trash, but absolute trash.”  Season 2: “The trash…the trash has been recycled?  He’s actually willing to put in the work, and not make excuses for himself.  What even is this.  Oh, and he’s the strategist the team has been missing so that’s cool.  Plus with Lucy he’s the emotionally mature supportive friend she so desperately needs given what a dick Wyatt’s being and seeing a slow burn relationship where he’s not all over her insisting his feelings entitle him to something is…wow.  Garcia Flynn and his stupid heart eyes.”

All the people I ship romantically with this character: Lucy, obv, because seriously, what kind of utter soulmate BS is this?  Lorena, as per canon, and because I enjoy writing her to boot.   My OC who was his first serious relationship, Danilbek Idrisov, as they fought together in the Chechen Rebellions.

My non-romantic OTP for this character: I love some Garcia+Rufus, and I’m excited to see that in action in MAWAMS where it’s a different Rufus who comes back.  Garcia+Jiya after Rufus’ death has been unexpectedly rewarding.  Garcia+Connor and soccer fanboying.  Garcia+Denise, because what we saw in 2x08 was hopefully the start of a newer, stronger relationship between them.

My unpopular opinion about this character: I’ve written meta on the somewhat divisive-in-fandom opinions of whether he slept with Future Lucy in Sao Paulo (I say no) and whether he had an abusive childhood (I say yes), so I’ll pass on those.  I’m not sure this one’s “unpopular” per se, but given that most fic depicts him as acting as an allosexual, I’ll go for it.  I write him as being demisexual (as well as being a raging dramatic bi, and pretty much everyone seems to concur).  He seems almost monastic in his disinterest, and yes, some of that’s grieving Lorena, but even though there’s an intense connection between him and Lucy throughout season 1, there seems to be no expressed romantic or sexual interest on his part, unlike Lucy very clearly checkin’ dat ass out in 1x10.  But in season 2, especially 2x06 and beyond, it changes when he actually starts to know the “real” Lucy and falls in love with a person rather than safely worshipping his journal goddess from a distance.  This is basically the point the emotional attachment is there for the demi switch to flip on. He started to be really, truly attracted to Lucy, both romantically and sexually.  And the change in his behavior then, how awkward and Soft(TM) and heart eyes he gets, supports that.  Before that, she was a sorta idol, and sorta friend.  After that, things are possible and he wants that and his internal screaming/internal hope is very real.

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon:  More Garcy seriously.  But what I would have liked to see is more of his Croatian side explored or expressed, because with Denise and Jiya as the children of immigrants, and Garcia being half-Croatian and growing up overseas, that lends some different perspective to the team and what it means to be “American”.  Given the name and backstory, the writers kind of wrote a character of an American NSA asset/spy/assassin who happened to end up played by Goran Visnjic, and rather than leaning into the interesting possibilities of him being what I tongue-in-cheek dub “Croatexan”, feels like they kind of just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and hope we don’t think about it too much. 

Common Pro-Demisexuality Arguments, Debunked

Kindly consult AVENwiki for the definition of "demisexuality" before reading the rest of the post, just for context, because this post is already long enough as it is.

1. "Demisexuality is real because people say so."

People can be wrong. People might just be echoing somebody's wrong belief because demisexuality is seen frequently on many social media platforms that they don't even question the validity of the concept anymore because of argumentum ad populum.

Sexual orientations are based on the GENDER(s) one can feel sexually attracted to (e.g. no gender for asexuals, same gender for gays/lesbians, two or more genders for bisexuals/pansexuals/polysexuals (not to be confused with polyamory)), and not based on HOW or WHEN one feels sexual attraction for another person (e.g. demisexuals who feel sexual attraction after forming a strong emotional connection with someone). Demisexuality etymologically makes no sense, trying to be a sexual orientation.

And let's look at demisexuality as a label in practice. By asserting that demisexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation, there is an implication that allosexuals (1) experience sexual attraction all the time, 24/7, when that is untrue for many of them, and (2) do not try to get to know someone at all before feeling anything for them. By asserting that demisexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation, there is an implication that asexual spaces are not even exclusive anymore to people who do not feel sexual attraction at all, when there is a reason they are separate from allosexuals. More on this in #2.

1.1 "I resonated with this label so it must be real." or "It's real because I say so."

Maybe you resonated with demisexuality because it's actually VERY COMMON. The experience is real but the label "demisexuality" is bullshit. And because it's a common experience, it doesn't need a sexual orientation label. Isn't it common sense that non-asexuals can start to feel sexual attraction after getting very emotionally-invested in someone? It's pretty normal for non-asexuals to want to get to know someone before the thought of sex with that person even occurs to them; this is especially normal behavior for those not interested in one-night stands.

Maybe you resonated with it because your libido is low. But having low libido is not a sexuality. What defines sexual orientation is (or are) the gender(s) one is (or is not) sexually attracted to. High-libido asexuals exist, too, so even associating low libido with asexuality isn't logical.

2. "Sexuality is a spectrum.", "Demisexuality is part of the asexual spectrum."

Looking at the definition of demisexuality, it doesn't make sense to be halfway between asexual and sexual/allosexual. Because it's either you feel sexual attraction (allosexuality) or you don't (asexuality). There is no in-between so there is no asexuality spectrum* that dictates when the asexual feels sexual attraction.

Demisexuals FEEL sexual attraction. It doesn't matter that they attach "after forming an emotional bond" after that part of the definition because, in the end, demisexuals DO feel sexual attraction as allosexuals do. Sexual orientations don't deal with the matter of WHEN/HOW sexual attraction is felt by the person, as demisexuality does.

So WHY are demisexuals wedging themselves in the asexual community when they feel what asexuals don't? There is no spectrum because it's either you feel sexual attraction or you don't. I am tired of seeing demisexuals be in asexual spaces because (1) their narratives block out the asexual narratives I'd like to see, i.e. they are seen in asexual spaces so much that asexuality is drowned out by the discussion of demisexual experiences within that space, and (2) I don't understand how someone who CAN feel sexual attraction is in the space that's supposed to be reserved for people LIKE me, who cannot.

I've seen asexuals who share my thoughts on demisexuality. Demisexuality makes it harder for asexuals to be taken seriously. It's annoying how demisexual voices are louder than actual asexual voices on social media.

*The only thing remotely close to a spectrum for asexuals is their level of aversion to sexual activity. There are sex-repulsed aces, sex-indifferent aces, and sex-favorable aces. Having safe, sane and consensual sex does not require one to be sexually attracted to the person(s) involved, because the latter two types of asexuals can engage in sexual activity for any of the ff. reasons: (1) for pregnancy, (2) as one of many optional tools to strengthen a relationship, (3) as a method of achieving emotional satisfaction from the act or the effects of the act, (4) for satisfying their libido even if they feel no sexual attraction for their partner(s), and so on.

RE: Sexuality as fluid. -Yes. Of course it is fluid. An ace may find themself feeling sexual attraction for somebody after all, so they can discard the "asexual" label and then adopt the label conforming to the gender of the target of their sexual attraction with regards to their own gender (het, gay, lesbian, bi, pan). Similarly, a straight person or a LGBTQ person may find themselves not feeling sexual attraction for anybody after all, so they can adopt the asexual label for themselves. There would be no need to adopt demisexuality as a label at all in either example, considering the criticisms of said label in this post.

3. "You're not demisexual, you don't know how it feels, and so you can't tell me demisexuality isn't real or tell me how to feel about my orientation."

This is the go-to argument from what I've seen on some Tumblr posts on demisexuality as a sexual orientation. It's not only fallacious, but also baseless. I've seen people who have admitted to formerly adopting the demisexuality label saying that, after thinking about it and/or growing older, they come to see the concept of demisexuality as a sexual orientation as unnecessary or ridiculous (see spookyfeminist-nature-blog's response in this post). Ex-demisexuals obviously have claimed to know how demisexuals feel at one point in their life.

And that includes me. I used to call myself demisexual because I confused my high libido for a capacity to feel sexual attraction. But libido has a biological basis and it is not equal to feeling sexual attraction. Not once have I considered scratching that itch with the involvement of another person, no matter how much I loved them, and so I do not feel sexual attraction towards anyone of any gender regardless of how strong my emotional bond is with them. I'm asexual and I think that this third argument is fallacious because it's like demisexuals only want to talk to demisexuals about the validity of their "orientation". What kind of sexuality-related discourse happens only within your ingroup? Y'all would just be reaffirming your held beliefs if you don't talk to people in the outgroup, almost like locking yourselves in a demisexuality echo chamber.

4. "You're just an aphobe.", or any death threats or insults aimed at the critic of demisexuality

The first argument is resorting to ad hominem. This and the latter two do not add any substance to the topic at hand, and you're not going to change any minds if you attack their person. And "aphobe" isn't even the right term considering that an "aphobe" is a bigot to asexuals. Demisexuals definitely aren't asexual and shouldn't be part of the asexual community for feeling the sexual attraction asexuals do not. Actually deliver counterarguments to prove that demisexuality is a valid sexual orientation if you really think these criticisms are wrong.

P.S. Death threats and the like aren't cool in any context, and I have seen people passionate enough to send these if they disagree strongly with an opinion or with a person for what they did/said. Whether you're for or against something doesn't justify sending someone a death threat or telling them to kill themselves. Communicate, educate, and agree to disagree instead of wanting the other person dead if the former two actions do not work.

4.1 "Nobody needs to see [these criticisms of demisexuality]." or "Stop telling me my orientation is fake or snowflake-y."

You're also not addressing the topic at hand by resorting to these arguments. Criticism of demisexuality exists for a reason. Maybe take a look at these criticisms and reflect upon the label.

5. "People find comfort in this label so don't criticize the label."

Any label undergoes criticism. Stop to think about WHY the criticism exists and WHAT part(s) of the concept of demisexuality is (are) being criticized. Read all of these points carefully, and engage in meaningful discourse. The burden of proof is on people who believe demisexuality is a valid sexual orientation.