Too many Sexual Orientations?
- Thread starter Adrasteia
- Start date
Oh yes, I definitely agree, I think this is a valid point if we were talking about people labeling themselves and whether or not we should care about someone else's sexual preferences. But I understood the OP to be talking about terms that subdivide people based on minor differences in sexual preference, and whether or not there's too many of such terms, which was what I was responding to. Sorry if I misunderstood the topic!
Last edited:
Spoiler:
For the actual topic at hand: I think people can express and/or label themselves as how they wish. It doesn't bother nor effect me so I don't mind. At the same time though, if society is going to continue to expand on this "spectrum of sexualities", people are going to just have to be patient when others aren't aware of whatever you refer to yourself as. :P
How can you dismiss asexuality so boldly? Can you claim to have experienced the feelings and thoughts of the people that say they are asexual? How can you be sure that they are indeed physically more attracted to one gender if attracted at all?
Let's reduce that argument to the absurd. Nobody is sure of what determines our sexuality, nature, nurture, or both. If nature, genetics would be responsible. By that train of thought, humans are by nature a species that has five fingers in one hand. So are people that are born with more or less fingers in a hand not human? In the opposite case, by nurture, psychology would be responsible. Humans are by nature a land dwelling species. We should enjoy taking a walk outside, right? So are people with agoraphobia not human? We are by nature a gregarious species, so are people with social anxiety not human? Those are very well documented cases that have been studied thoroughly and that no one can deny are true. So, if by nature humans are an x species, is anyone that doesn't follow that "rule" not a human?
Asexuality is a deviation from the norm. Something that belongs to a group statistically but isn't aligned with the average. That doesn't make anyone less human.
Last edited:
Humans are as a whole land-dwelling, gregarious, and generally have five fingers on one hand, but that doesn't mean that an individual human must be non-agoraphobic, without social anxiety or have five fingers on one hand. I think the point that Lunaris Adamantine was making is that all humans are sexual creatures - if you are human, you are sexual (whatever that entails).
But why must they be sexual? That was a reductio ad absurdium, but how is this particular case any different to the others provided? Why must an individual human be a sexual creature?
I'm not going to assume that to be true, but there is a bit of support for that. We are endowed with sexual organs, with hormones that can lead to sexual passions. At the very least the very vast majority are people have the potential to experience sexual feeling. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to take that to rule out asexuality - having the capability for sexual feeling is enough to make one a sexual being.
Psychic
Really and truly
- 387
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Seen Apr 11, 2018
Do you think it's helpful or a hindrance to create a label to define all possible sexual orientations?
We humans love being able to categorize things. We like being able to name things so as to be able to put them into boxes we can understand. Having widely-accepted names for things is important for making sure those people are acknowledged. That said, some people like labels, and some don't, so when it comes down to individuals, different people will feel differently about whether or not they use labels.
I think it's great that these terms are slowly being understood and used by the greater public. As others have said, it took a long time for for us to even understand/acknowledge homosexuality and bisexuality, and there are still people who think those aren't real. There is a very long history of denying "new" understandings of gender and sexuality, so the negative reactions aren't surprising.
Gender = male, female, intersex, non-binary, etc,
Sexual Orientation = heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc
Sexuality is who you're attracted to, and gender is how a person identifies. Being pansexual doesn't mean being attracted to any sexual orientation - being pansexual means being attracted to any gender. :)
Also, bisexuality = attraction to two genders, and pansexuality = attraction to all genders, which includes people who are intersex, non-binary, agender, gender fluid, etc. While it is sort of a natural progression from bisexuality, it's distinct enough that having another name is necessary.
Also, you clearly don't believe that gender dysmorphia is real if you say things like "guys who think they are girls." Also, your implication that people are only attracted to trans folk because of a fetish is reductive, and implies that trans people aren't worthy of genuine love. I'm so sorry to hear you think that.
As for your last sentence - so you have a problem with people being specific about their attractions? Sexual attraction is literally different from fetishes, and if you're equating the two then I encourage you to read up on what sexual fetishism actually is.
~Psychic
We humans love being able to categorize things. We like being able to name things so as to be able to put them into boxes we can understand. Having widely-accepted names for things is important for making sure those people are acknowledged. That said, some people like labels, and some don't, so when it comes down to individuals, different people will feel differently about whether or not they use labels.
I think it's great that these terms are slowly being understood and used by the greater public. As others have said, it took a long time for for us to even understand/acknowledge homosexuality and bisexuality, and there are still people who think those aren't real. There is a very long history of denying "new" understandings of gender and sexuality, so the negative reactions aren't surprising.
Actually, to clarify:
Gender = male, female, intersex, non-binary, etc,
Sexual Orientation = heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc
Sexuality is who you're attracted to, and gender is how a person identifies. Being pansexual doesn't mean being attracted to any sexual orientation - being pansexual means being attracted to any gender. :)
Just because that's your perception does not make it true. A lot of people perceive all of these different sexualities and genders to be new, but many of them have existed for a long time. The reason we're hearing about it now is because those people previously had to remain silent, or were ignored. Mainstream culture has pushed many things to the fringes of society for a long time, but we're starting to see them seeping in more and more (such as how trans people have existed for ages, and are only now finally starting to get more visibility). Do you actually hang out in any queer-friendly spaces? If you did, you might be surprised to actually see much of this IRL. Of course, if you're the sort of person who refuses to recognize any sexual orientations outside of those 3, then people are probably less likely to be open with you about this stuff, which perpetuates the cycle.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it was created specifically to be confusing. If you don't understand something, then you should educate yourself so as to make a more informed decision about it. Additionally, this isn't just teenagers - it's also academics and scholars, activists and educators. But even if these were created by teens doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken seriously. Teens have created an entire language around how they discuss abuse and self-harm, which are very real and very serious subjects at any age. To act like all of that is meaningless and fake would not only be ridiculous, but also harmful to those people.
If we only needed 3 terms, then people wouldn't have created new ones. Just because you don't think we need more terms doesn't mean everyone feels the same. Your logic of "I've never heard of _______ therefore it doesn't exist/doesn't need a name" just doesn't make sense. The argument that "society isn't ready to accept _______ so keep it to yourself" is harmful because it silences people, and prevents us from progressing as a society. Again, we refused to even acknowledge gay and bi people until recently, and that's still a problem in many places! Plus historically, what you said is the exact same argument that has been used to restrict the rights of gay people. Do you really want to be associated with that?
Also, bisexuality = attraction to two genders, and pansexuality = attraction to all genders, which includes people who are intersex, non-binary, agender, gender fluid, etc. While it is sort of a natural progression from bisexuality, it's distinct enough that having another name is necessary.
Just because that's your opinion or experience does not make it true. People have identified outside of the male-female binary for centuries and in cultures around the world. But even if you can't believe that, you can't deny biology; intersex people have also existed for forever, and they certainly don't always fit in the binary.
Also, you clearly don't believe that gender dysmorphia is real if you say things like "guys who think they are girls." Also, your implication that people are only attracted to trans folk because of a fetish is reductive, and implies that trans people aren't worthy of genuine love. I'm so sorry to hear you think that.
Being asexual doesn't mean not being attracted to anyone. Ace people can still feel attraction - they're just typically not interested in sex. We already know that different people have different sex drives, so it's not really hard to believe that some people are just at the very end. Also, you just said you believe bisexuality is real, but you just claimed that ace people still have to be attracted to "one gender over the other." I do not understand this logic.
As for your last sentence - so you have a problem with people being specific about their attractions? Sexual attraction is literally different from fetishes, and if you're equating the two then I encourage you to read up on what sexual fetishism actually is.
But the very fact that some people lose their sex drive (sometimes due to age, sometimes drugs, sometimes health issues) is evidence that there is no hard and fast rule on this. Sex drive is already something that varies wildly between individuals, so it's perfectly natural to assume that maybe some people are just at the far, far end of that spectrum. And if someone says they don't feel sexual attraction, who are we to tell them they're wrong?
~Psychic
Last edited:
It could also be argued that homosexuality is unnatural because it does not lead to procreation, which goes hand on hand with that argument. Yet it occurs in hundreds of species in the wild, so it really isn't.
There are organs in the human body that serve no real purpose or that some people do as well without than with, so being there doesn't mean it needs to be used. While not a perfect analogy, I understand that, it is similar.
Our bodies work differently one way or another, we can't expect everyone to feel the same way.
Also, how would you classify someone that is not capable of sexual feeling? (I feel like this part comes off a little aggressive, but that isn't my intention and I can't think of a better way to word it. I'm genuinely curious.)
Last edited:
Arylett Charnoa
No one in particular.
- 1,130
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 32
- Seen Jan 5, 2023
Basically, what I believe he's saying is that even if you claim not to have an interest in sex, you'll typically have a preference for either gender (or for both, as it were). It might not be sexual, but it can certainly be romantic, and that would fall into one of the regular old categories.
Also, re: Psychic: I'm pretty sure you'll never agree with me, and you've just posted your response angrily and passionately. I will let you know that I still disagree with you (and nothing you can say will ever convince me either, this is a matter that I have had my mind set on for many many years), and see this whole thing as being people overcomplicating things and getting overly offended. My point isn't that such things don't exist or that I don't understand them. I do. But I think they're too specific and unnecessary to have a term for.
In short, here are my views:
- Pansexuality to me is basically bisexuality, I don't see any genders other than binary existing, and I consider intersex or whatever you may call it as being part of the binary. Any "third gender" is just a variation of male or female (or both at the same time, which still counts as being within the binary) from what I understand. I realize this will offend a lot of people, and they may call me ignorant, but that's what I think. This is why I don't think it deserves a term. And most people, as I said before, don't really know about these niche gender identities. So they would pretty much consider it the same if it was explained to them this way.
- Regardless of whether or not you think it restricts the rights of others to mention that, in a world where even mentioning homosexuality can set some people off, I really don't think a term like "scoliosexual" is ready to be accepted. It's the truth of this world. And honestly, because of my belief that it fits into a variation of the three, I think it's too specific of a term.
- My main view, above all though, is this: words should be used only if a majority of people know what they mean. People know what homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual are. They don't know the rest. And I don't feel comfortable having them around or referring to them unless I am in some odd niche of the internet. I like stuff to be as clear as possible, to be as simple as possible, and other people do too. I honestly don't think a majority of people really want to know anything more specific than those three terms.
- Most importantly of all, you don't HAVE to agree with me. And what I say doesn't determine law. I can't arbitrate what words will be used by people, I can only say my preference. (Never once did I mention that people SHOULD do this, only what I believe) What I'm saying is that I only take those three terms seriously, because they are commonly used and accepted, and don't see any other terms as valid until they become such.
That's the end of my spiel here. I'm done with this thread forever. This topic is one that I really dislike because of how ridiculously controversial it is, because it makes it difficult for me to hold in my passion and stress myself. Particularly when people who champion this sort of thing are so... aggressive about any opposing opinions. So to prevent further stress, I won't respond to anything else anyone has to say. There's no point, because nothing you can say will change my mind. And I won't change yours.
Last edited:
Oh, ok. I see what you mean. But, well, romantic interest is separate from sexual interest, as you stated, and we're discussing sexual orientation. So, no interest in sex would make someone asexual, but that doesn't mean they aren't interested in relationships at all.
Sun
When the sun goes down...
- 4,706
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Seen Jan 20, 2017
Correct.
I'd also like to extend your points. One can be an asexual while straight and of course it is also possible to be asexual and gay at the very same time! (:
- 169
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 33
- Florida
- Seen Feb 5, 2024
People who identify out of the binary are making stuff up. Third genders simply don't exist, so that is undeniable. As for intersex? Yeah, that's a thing. But it's not a third gender, as you seem to think. The X and Y chromosomes get all screwed up, so either a man is born with lady parts or a lady is born with man parts. They are still either a man or a woman, and saying they are something else is disrespectful.
As for the rest of your arguments against me, you are simply misinterpreting me and putting words in my mouth. I'll just leave it at that.
Thepowaofhax
Spectre
- 357
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Seen May 29, 2017
I see no reason to bother with Tumblr; Tumblr only brings flame wars as well as shoving their "objective" morals down people's throats.
Now, I see no reason to make up all these sexualities or genders; after all, why should people sexually identify as an attack helicopter? What the hell is a "sapiosexual"? People are blind. There are only two genders, people born with both parts are either male or female depending on if their body generates testosterone or estrogen, and the only exception to this rule is transgender (because they have gender dysphoria, which needs to be treated before they harm themselves because they're not male or female.)
Now, let's take a look at this list. Pansexuality should not be classified as a "sexuality" because there simply isn't fifty thousand different gender identities, and the "non-binary" is only something people on Tumblr made up so they can feel special/garner attention. Also, Asexuality cannot be a thing because a human is, as said, a sexual entity. Besides, that term is already used for creatures that reproduce by splitting into two perfect clones of itself.
Honestly, most of these new "gender identities/sexualities" are jargon originating from Tumblr and used in the circlejerk of Cultural Marxists. They have no solid meaning outside of that circlejerk and anyone who genuinely believes in what it says and garner no attention to me.
Now, I see no reason to make up all these sexualities or genders; after all, why should people sexually identify as an attack helicopter? What the hell is a "sapiosexual"? People are blind. There are only two genders, people born with both parts are either male or female depending on if their body generates testosterone or estrogen, and the only exception to this rule is transgender (because they have gender dysphoria, which needs to be treated before they harm themselves because they're not male or female.)
Now, let's take a look at this list. Pansexuality should not be classified as a "sexuality" because there simply isn't fifty thousand different gender identities, and the "non-binary" is only something people on Tumblr made up so they can feel special/garner attention. Also, Asexuality cannot be a thing because a human is, as said, a sexual entity. Besides, that term is already used for creatures that reproduce by splitting into two perfect clones of itself.
Honestly, most of these new "gender identities/sexualities" are jargon originating from Tumblr and used in the circlejerk of Cultural Marxists. They have no solid meaning outside of that circlejerk and anyone who genuinely believes in what it says and garner no attention to me.
Elysieum
Requiescat en pace.
- 258
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- By the lake.
- Seen Sep 8, 2019
This.
There is something to be said about the power of labels though. On one hand, these subsidiary groups of sexual orientation want stronger footing and want to enter mainstream consciousness, therefore specifically designated names do sound like a good idea, but on the other hand there is something repellent to me about this growing number of classifications. It seems to be divisive in a way.
Labels can draw dangerous lines.
- 2,964
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Age 32
- A place you dread and envy
- Seen May 18, 2022
I think a lot of these groups could go into one category really, super special snowflakes. I am a straight white male though so perhaps I'm just conditioned into thinking this way, I really will never truly understand the plight of a gender fluid 14 year old internet blogger with electric blue highlights in hisher hair.
That being said I've recently been finding myself more attracted to anime robots than in the flesh women. I could well be on the way to getting my own prefix.
That being said I've recently been finding myself more attracted to anime robots than in the flesh women. I could well be on the way to getting my own prefix.
- 15,971
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 31
- she/her, they/them
- Seen today
nothing like the word "sexual orientation" to get people posting amirite
Though at the same time I wonder if it's truly necessary to have a name for every flavor of sexuality. A person's sexuality exists regardless of whether or not there's a special word for it. Heterosexual people are still heterosexual regardless of whether the word heterosexual exists. Skoliosexual people are still skoliosexual even if skoliosexual wasn't a word.
I very much agree with this. You wanna have a different term for your sexuality, go ahead, I don't mind. Just don't expect me to remember every single fucking one when we get to like 2 dozen of them and which one you are.
Though at the same time I wonder if it's truly necessary to have a name for every flavor of sexuality. A person's sexuality exists regardless of whether or not there's a special word for it. Heterosexual people are still heterosexual regardless of whether the word heterosexual exists. Skoliosexual people are still skoliosexual even if skoliosexual wasn't a word.
Yeah, and I don't think it's impossible for someone to both lack sex drive as well as consider themselves a sexual creature without the potential for sexual feeling. I get that sexuality is also a self-assumed identity, so people will label themselves asexual on the basis on the lack of sexual interest or experience. On the other hand, some people seem to define asexuality as the lack of sexual potential, which I get as well.
Melody
Banned
- 6,460
- Posts
- 19
- Years
- Cuddling those close to me
- Seen Mar 4, 2018
That's patently ridiculous. Your entire statement completely dismisses someone's right to self-determination. Would you enjoy it if I told you that you didn't exist? Gender is as much of a spectrum as sexuality is, and you are 100% wrong for dismissing it because it's inconvenient, or because you can't believe the hundreds and thousands of people before you who are convening and speaking out? Some of this you are saying is even being dismissive of transgendered individuals too! Now that's most definitely a thing.
Just because something is in the statistical minority of the population doesn't mean they aren't necessarily a member of the group. I firmly believe it makes more sense to have some human decency, no matter how inconvenient it may be for you.
I keep seeing people complain "Do we even need a word for all these different kinds of ____?" and that question and argument is just as ridiculous as pretending they don't exist. In fact, it basically is pretending they don't exist. Please stop that. It's not right. It doesn't even make sense to question a word for it's existence. Humans create language all the time as a matter of life, and nobody questions that. Keep an open mind for once and learn. With that said, labels are not always accurate, but they can sure get the meaning across, which is why labels exist. Much of language is symbolic, and we convey meaning through symbolic usage of language. To be dismissive of one particular usage of language as it was intended to be used is pretty unsupportive, and has no real place in a discussion, or as a legitimate discussion.
The very premise of the OP was indeed flawed, and it still is flawed and slanted. The very existence of all the words, yes including the ones from the trolls and tumblr tweens we don't like, are all just natural results of language. Yes, perhaps some words won't venture beyond the jungle that is tumblr; but I see many of you acting downright disrespectful and dismissive of ACTUAL terms coined by academics and doctors in the study of sex and attraction! Go read up on some wikipedia for each of the words on the opening post, namely Pansexual and Skoliosexual and you will plainly see that these terms are NOT simply tools of tipsy tumblrinas, but actual words that have been used and embraced in the LGBTQ community for decades.