The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   I'm a heteroromantic omnidemisexual. (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=342589)

Alexander Nicholi January 16th, 2015 10:56 PM

I'm a heteroromantic omnidemisexual.
 
What are your romantic/sexual preferences? If you're not the all-inclusive fellow, what do you think about those you aren't attracted to? Any reason why you like those you do or dislike those you don't?


The title being my most specific self-description, I'll fuck anything that can fuck, but I'll only have women to date, please. Men are dogs to me and I am no exception, though because I am a demisexual as well I have a really hard time with my gayness, to be honest. Still, I'm one hell of a romantic, though. Date me.

pkmin3033 January 16th, 2015 11:39 PM

I'm asexual, and have been since my early teens. That's self-explanatory really, so I don't need to go into detail.

I don't know if I'm aromantic or demiromantic because I've never let anyone get close enough to me to find out if it'd make a difference, and I have no plans to. I suppose I might as well be aromantic for all intents and purposes, as my personality means that even if I were demiromantic and formed an attachment to someone, I would never allow myself to act on it. In fact, I'd probably cut myself off from the person for my own safety.

Ice January 17th, 2015 1:27 AM

I'm a heteroromantic heterosexual I think. I've only dated girls and only feel sexually attracted to girls. I'm really generic in that bit. I can find guys attractive, but not in a sexual or romantic way. It's just that pretty people are pretty people. I don't know if I'd be able to date a transexual, I completely accept them as people (Damn, that sounds already disrespecting, I have a hard time wording this :/), but I don't know if I'd be ready to date one.

Chocolate™ January 17th, 2015 2:55 AM

I'm a heteromantic heterosexual as well. I've personally only felt attracted to girls. However, for some reason I'm this one guy who will never get attracted to anything unless that particular person passes through a very specific set of criterion, so basically every girl I feel attracted to looks almost the same as well as is somewhat of a "gamer." I don't know why my mind works like this but it does cause nearly all the girls I've been attracted to possess the same skillset.

Her January 17th, 2015 3:00 AM

I used to give it to men in the ass and now the thought of engaging in sex utterly repulses me. Take that as you may.

Nihilego January 17th, 2015 3:05 AM

kids these days

I'm straight

adventuring January 17th, 2015 3:37 AM

I'm a heterodextrous indyplatonic ambivertoromantic. But who knows for how long that will last!

Alexander Nicholi January 17th, 2015 3:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pikachu (Post 8583153)
I'm a heterodextrous indyplatonic ambivertoromantic. But who knows for how long that will last!

With all due respect, what in God's name does that mean?

Unless it's a slight, in which case nevermind. I'm not that interested in the specifics of intolerance.

Chocolate™ January 17th, 2015 3:45 AM

What the hell is wrong with me? I just thought that heteromantic heterosecal meant straight without even looking it up. Well to make it even more clear I'll use simple words that I understand, I'm straight.

adventuring January 17th, 2015 3:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senusret (Post 8583157)
With all due respect, what in God's name does that mean?

Unless it's a slight, in which case nevermind. I'm not that interested in the specifics of intolerance.

It's complicated, but I think it fits me well. I can call myself by any labels I want, can I not? :) or are there official ones written down somewhere that you have to prove to others that you fit into?

Lotus the Cat January 17th, 2015 3:48 AM

Hetero-everything for me. I do admire beauty in other women, however.

I don't have much criteria in what I find attractive in people, but my big one is that I feel men need to be masculine and women need to be feminine. I cringe when I see a man stand with his feet facing inwards in the same way I cringe when I watch a woman walk (or sit for that matter) with her legs wide.

Alexander Nicholi January 17th, 2015 3:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pikachu (Post 8583161)
It's complicated, but I think it fits me well. I can call myself by any labels I want, can I not? :) or are there official ones written down somewhere that you have to prove to others that you fit into?

The purpose of abstraction (language) is to provide meaning that can be understood by others. In this case you're using language to illustrate a point against conventional labels for romanticism and sexuality. I can't conjure why. But I will say that it's a matter of understanding, not convincing, that language gets its power from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocolate™ (Post 8583159)
What the hell is wrong with me? I just thought that heteromantic heterosecal meant straight without even looking it up. Well to make it even more clear I'll use simple words that I understand, I'm straight.

Protip: The title is half-serious. Don't get too bent out of shape over something that you yourself say is nonapplicable.

lol, once again PC has become Batman and is 100% fucking srs about everything. I should do some work to lighten this place up, it's so gloomy. I might have to become the Joker to do that, shit. lmao

seeker January 17th, 2015 4:34 AM

I dream of a world where we no longer have to, nor bother, defining sexual preferences. It's mundane, exclusive, and backward. I've fucked more women than guys, why do I need a title to attribute to it?

Nakala Pri January 17th, 2015 4:37 AM

I don't care who you are, what you like or how ugly you might have been, but if I like you, I'll like you! :D There's no boundaries. =P

I like a woman's bodyshape a lot more then a man, but men look funner to hug, so I dunno. I'm torn. xD I'm not really sexually attracted, I just like faces and elegance. =D

Ice January 17th, 2015 5:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocolate™ (Post 8583159)
What the hell is wrong with me? I just thought that heteromantic heterosecal meant straight without even looking it up. Well to make it even more clear I'll use simple words that I understand, I'm straight.

Wait, what, it doesn't? Man I don't understand all these sexual preference terms. Can't we just make two groups: Fuckable, and Under-Age?

Her January 17th, 2015 5:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorallyIncorrect (Post 8583249)
Wait, what, it doesn't? Man I don't understand all these sexual preference terms. Can't we just make two groups: Fuckable, and Under-Age?

honestly I just exclaimed zoinks irl

Alfieri January 17th, 2015 5:57 AM

I'm straight. Some girls I find attractive, some girls I don't. All depends on their looks and personality.

Shining Raichu January 17th, 2015 6:05 AM

Sometimes I stop and think "Did our forefathers really die in the wars to protect our right to identify as a demiromantic asexual? Maybe they shouldn't have. Maybe it'd be better if Germany won. You know, within reason. Like they had to stop killing people, obviously."

maccrash January 17th, 2015 7:01 AM

I'm straight. haven't really ever seriously questioned it either.

Alexander Nicholi January 17th, 2015 8:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abnegation (Post 8583195)
I dream of a world where we no longer have to, nor bother, defining sexual preferences. It's mundane, exclusive, and backward. I've fucked more women than guys, why do I need a title to attribute to it?

Explain to me how a lack of conventional definition to these preferences would help things. I have the idea that at heart people are naturally all-loving and limit themselves but that's another story.

It sounds so elegant but I don't understand the logical appeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodom (Post 8583262)
Sometimes I stop and think "Did our forefathers really die in the wars to protect our right to identify as a demiromantic asexual? Maybe they shouldn't have. Maybe it'd be better if Germany won. You know, within reason. Like they had to stop killing people, obviously."

Quit it XD

seeker January 17th, 2015 8:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senusret (Post 8583370)
Explain to me how a lack of conventional definition to these preferences would help things.
It sounds so elegant but I don't understand the logical appeal.

Explain why the preferential differences between genders should be present in our world at all. I don't understand the logical appeal of defining your sexual preference, not in this day and age. We're all humans, we're all able to have sex with one another; why bother segregating people into brackets so that society can define what gender we prefer to have sex with?

Entermaid January 17th, 2015 8:42 AM

I see how definitions can be helpful in expressing to others your preferences but I prefer saying, I am only interested in dating men.

Essentially, I prefer not having to use a noun to describe myself, since it encourages others to make attributions.

For instance, I if I get married, I don't want it to be a "gay" wedding, or worse, and LGBT wedding (Or a homoromatic/homosexual wedding, haha). Or be a gay/LGBT student/professor. I don't want to become an umbrella term, or be distinguished as a gay advocate/proponent if I get married or if I am building a career that attaches a different expectation to my life . This is one of the reasons why I stopped making it a point to come out, and rather just simply dating men, implying my sexuality.

Alexander Nicholi January 17th, 2015 8:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abnegation (Post 8583383)
Explain why the preferential differences between genders should be present in our world at all. I don't understand the logical appeal of defining your sexual preference, not in this day and age. We're all humans, we're all able to have sex with one another; why bother segregating people into brackets so that society can define what gender we prefer to have sex with?

Because it's apparent most people don't fall into the all-loving type. Heck, most people are totally hetero, even. Besides, it's not like it's impossible to categorize - sexuality and romanticism preferences are more than classifiable. There's a handful of Greek and Latin prefixes to the word 'sexual' and 'romantic'. It's not some uninnumerable array of bizarre moonspeak that some make it out to be. Sorry you can't just be lazy about someone's preferences and mark gay or straight, we do have them. I don't get why we wouldn't classify such an immediate aspect of our lives - it's what humans do. Apparently we have a fetish for abstraction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Avenger (Post 8583409)
I see how definitions can be helpful in expressing to others your preferences but I prefer saying, I am only interested in dating men.

Essentially, I prefer not having to use a noun to describe myself, since it encourages others to make attributions.

For instance, I if I get married, I don't want it to be a "gay" wedding, or worse, and LGBT wedding (Or a homoromatic/homosexual wedding, haha). Or be a gay/LGBT student/professor. I don't want to become an umbrella term, or be distinguished as a gay advocate/proponent if I get married or if I am building a career that attaches a different expectation to my life . This is one of the reasons why I stopped making it a point to come out, and rather just simply dating men, implying my sexuality.

This doesn't mean the whole idea of classification should be forgotten though, right? If I'm understanding you.

Entermaid January 17th, 2015 9:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senusret (Post 8583416)

This doesn't mean the whole idea of classification should be forgotten though, right? If I'm understanding you.

Essentially, when we strive to differentiate ourselves in a way that is abnormal to the majority of people, that distinction will almost always be used as a means of social identity. Whereas, being straight does not have a substantial impact upon the identity ascribed to them. You never hear people say, you know that straight girl from class? The lesbian in class, now that would be a different story. People begin to use these markers a means of describing and anticipating identities and behavior, whereas diminishing other identities which may be more substantive to our everyday lives. Thus, diminishing our cumulative identity, supplementing/changing that identity with something as arbitrary as who do you prefer to sleep with?

Further, straight people are less sexualized in that sense. When I think gay/homosexual/lgbt grad student vs grad student, I immediately tie sexual behavior to identity and perception, and its distracting. Or, I tie an expectation to studying "gay" subjects, which might be misleading or pigeon-holing.

Sexuality, the structured labeling, and the need for other to form social identities based on these is not important beyond personal/private dating preferences.

I actually don't even say "I like men", but rather say something like, "my boyfriend" "my ex...he". People know my sexuality, but I have presented it in a not important way, and people seem to treat me as more normal because of it. In the past, self-labeling set up those expectations and false attributes.

Alexander Nicholi January 17th, 2015 9:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Avenger (Post 8583442)
Essentially, when we strive to differentiate ourselves in a way that is abnormal to the majority of people, that distinction will almost always be used as a means of social identity. Whereas, being straight does not have a substantial impact upon the identity ascribed to them. You never hear people say, you know that straight girl from class? The lesbian in class, now that would be a different story. People begin to use these markers a means of describing and anticipating identities and behavior, whereas diminishing other identities which may be more substantive to our everyday lives. Thus, diminishing our cumulative identity, supplementing/changing that identity with something as arbitrary as who do you prefer to sleep with?

Further, straight people are less sexualized in that sense. When I think gay/homosexual/lgbt grad student vs grad student, I immediately tie sexual behavior to identity and perception, and its distracting. Or, I tie an expectation to studying "gay" subjects, which might be misleading or pigeon-holing.

Sexuality, the structured labeling, and the need for other to form social identities based on these is not important beyond personal/private dating preferences.

I actually don't even say "I like men", but rather say something like, "my boyfriend" "my ex...he". People know my sexuality, but I have presented it in a not important way, and people seem to treat me as more normal because of it. In the past, self-labeling set up those expectations and false attributes.

This reasoning is sound for the most part, but it doesn't give any reason I see to forego the entire concept of sexuality/romanticism labels. People are different on that by its nature, and the idea of ignoring people's split positions on that sounds so alien to me. Gavin, I need some help.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:03 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.