The Nineteen Sexualities and You!
- Thread starter Radoh
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So you ignore that by simply acknowledging that bisexuality is indeed a thing, I in fact do know better than the man who says there is only gay and straight.Angryman101 said:
Although I can only assume that your complete lack of proper response is more to the tune of you not thinking Nonsexuality is a thing, well I am one and I've never really had any reason to be anything else. There's no trauma in my past, there has been opportunity, several occasions of them in fact, but without any real proper proof that isn't going to be good enough for you.
The categories I tend to use (and, being an egomaniac, think should be used universally due to their utter perfection) are:
-Heterosexual (predominantly attracted to the opposite sex)
-Homosexual (predominantly attracted to the same sex)
-Bisexual (significant attraction to both sexes, I don't think the degree of preference is all that important)
-Asexual (no significant sexual attraction)
-Demisexual (attraction based on personality, not sex)
I think those five categories cover every (consenting human) possibility. I did not include the popular term 'pansexual' because I have yet to see it defined as anything other than 'biphobic demisexual' or 'biphobic bisexual'.
And now, because it is relevant but I'm too tired to think of a better way to work it in to my post, a quote from a Youtuber I am subscribed to: "We define labels, labels do not define us."
-Heterosexual (predominantly attracted to the opposite sex)
-Homosexual (predominantly attracted to the same sex)
-Bisexual (significant attraction to both sexes, I don't think the degree of preference is all that important)
-Asexual (no significant sexual attraction)
-Demisexual (attraction based on personality, not sex)
I think those five categories cover every (consenting human) possibility. I did not include the popular term 'pansexual' because I have yet to see it defined as anything other than 'biphobic demisexual' or 'biphobic bisexual'.
And now, because it is relevant but I'm too tired to think of a better way to work it in to my post, a quote from a Youtuber I am subscribed to: "We define labels, labels do not define us."
So that one gene explains homosexual men, but what about homosexual females? There would have to be a separate one for that, and if there is then who's to say there isn't one for male or female asexuality?Blablahb said:
And if homosexuality can be caused by hormone exposure, why couldn't asexuality?
Ekk! A thread on sexuality! Remember! Remain calm, and no one is attacking you personally!
Firstly, you do know the difference between objective and subjective right?
"I find that arousing: <- subjective.
"That thing aroused me." <- objective.
Its philosophy 101 basically.
Secondly, 2500 categories is more accurate than three. One can simply be more specific when there are more categories, and therefore more terms and concepts, to explain the variations. Having 2500 categories is also more of a headache to keep track of, so I can understand that much.
Thirdly, everything has a gray area that has to be taken into account. By your logic, are you saying that taking the possibility that you find both men and women attractive is "arbitrary gray area" and therefore warrentless of a category to separate it from those who only find attractive and those who only find women attractive, gender notwithstanding?
Next:
Again, there is variation. Some aces masturbate as they still have the urge to be jerked off, but don't lust for anyone. Others can be jacked off through seduction: as in they don't find overly sexual imagery attractive or find the act that appealing, but they can be wined and dined and will want to be intimate. Though, worth pointing out: wanting intimacy isn't the same as wanting to fuck.
Then you get fucking Sheldon. He must be why no one want to believe aces exist.
Another thing that should be considered: being jaded and sexually frustrated aren't going to make people renounce their sexual orientation. That is akin to saying a men becomes gay because he can't score with a woman. Yes, I've heard to situational bisexuality... but that's only for extreme cases.
I should at least be a two, as I have encountered 'threatening attractive women' in my day, and I'm more tickled pink than creept out when women hit on me. The test seemed to assume that because I harbor no homophobia or jealousy whatsoever that I'm bi. Sigh.
Yeah, it ain't happening. It won't be long before you categorize their hair to a style and colour, their eyes to a shape and colour, their gender to a binary dude/chick system (or unknown/hermaphrodite), their clothes to a fashion style or colour, their accent to a certain region of the world, and their skincolour to a particular race (hahaha, that word).
But, those are outside indicators! No worries, if you tell me their a jerk... that's a category for personality type. How about their perceived intelligence? Category. Even concepts like 'shoe' are categories: its a type of clothing, one that goes on feet. So is the concept of colour: its categorizing certain mixtures of the visible light spectrum.
So nevermind that labels and pigeon holes are needed in science to describe people or to have them judged without merit... its not even reasonable to not label people.
If you tell me that someone is a 'person,' well, everyone is a 'person' and therefore you told me nothing. Even if we lived in a dystopic society where there was such a thing as a 'non-person' that would still not be enough to tell me about a given person.
I get into this argument that spiraled from an argument on political correctness with my mom when I refer to developmentally delayed and mentally handicapped people as "retards" or "speds" for lack of a concise term. When asked "what should I refer to them as?" she replies with "people" to which I reply "but everyone is a person!" and she says "Bingo" like I just got touchéd. My response is usually "but I don't want to talk about every single person on the planet, I only want to talk about this specific group... whose struggles, culture, and challenges are unique to them and not to everyone else." That has her retracting statements.
Arguably the determinate "race" isn't even that bad. Yes it was used by the whites to justify their attack on the blacks... back then it was also literally thought that the different 'races' of the world where separate species onto themselves, like elves versus dwarves. Honestly, what's wrong with referring to a person with very dark skin as 'black' and someone with really pale skin as 'white' unless an expletive was being used? The KKK can't be taken seriously anymore due to advances in science verifying that blacks and whites were just variations of the human race.
The idea that we should not be labeled is so stupid that I'm baffled people believe it. I think what it is is that the people who believe it are also against unjust discrimination, and therefore they demonetize the idea that a person can be categorized because, well, if you were categorized a 'jew' in Nazi Germany you were sent to a camp to be killed in the most brutal way imaginable. They therefore associate the very idea of categorization with discrimination, prejudice and persecution. While you need a concept to rally for/against in the first place, the existence of the concept in of itself isn't going to kill people.
Speaking of labels:
Lets start with an easy one.Zaik said:
Firstly, you do know the difference between objective and subjective right?
"I find that arousing: <- subjective.
"That thing aroused me." <- objective.
Its philosophy 101 basically.
Secondly, 2500 categories is more accurate than three. One can simply be more specific when there are more categories, and therefore more terms and concepts, to explain the variations. Having 2500 categories is also more of a headache to keep track of, so I can understand that much.
Thirdly, everything has a gray area that has to be taken into account. By your logic, are you saying that taking the possibility that you find both men and women attractive is "arbitrary gray area" and therefore warrentless of a category to separate it from those who only find attractive and those who only find women attractive, gender notwithstanding?
Next:
Anyone who thinks Aces are as mythological as unicorns, for one thing there are not suppressing any urges. To put perspective onto this, if you are a straight man, do you have to go about your day repressing urges to lust for men? If so... come the fuck out of the closet man, its 2012. Else, you understand where I'm going with this, and therefore can fathom the possibility that one may not have those feelings for any gender or possibly for anyone.Unsilenced said:
Again, there is variation. Some aces masturbate as they still have the urge to be jerked off, but don't lust for anyone. Others can be jacked off through seduction: as in they don't find overly sexual imagery attractive or find the act that appealing, but they can be wined and dined and will want to be intimate. Though, worth pointing out: wanting intimacy isn't the same as wanting to fuck.
Then you get fucking Sheldon. He must be why no one want to believe aces exist.
Another thing that should be considered: being jaded and sexually frustrated aren't going to make people renounce their sexual orientation. That is akin to saying a men becomes gay because he can't score with a woman. Yes, I've heard to situational bisexuality... but that's only for extreme cases.
That test is bullshit. I took it and has determined that I am a three (true bisexual). This is because I'm not a homophobe that will vomit chunks at the thought of licking pussy (its about as gross as blowing a dude if you ask me), wouldn't be phased at the though of going to an orgy without knowing the gender makeup of the guestlist, and wouldn't find a FMF threesome awkward because of the other woman. If I was a true bi there should be, in my mind cus I'm nuts, a female equivalent to David Tennant, and there just isn't for me.D Moness said:
I should at least be a two, as I have encountered 'threatening attractive women' in my day, and I'm more tickled pink than creept out when women hit on me. The test seemed to assume that because I harbor no homophobia or jealousy whatsoever that I'm bi. Sigh.
Lets try that for a moment. Don't compartmentalize a person at all. Now, pick a random person and describe them for me...Blunderboy said:I came up with one too.
Yeah I've never gotten over peoples insane need to classify and file people into groups and boxes. People are people, regardless of if they are gay, straight, bi, pan, whatever.
The sooner people stop trying to compartmentalise the human race, regardless of intentions, the better.
I think Edward Jame Olmos said it best.
---snip---
I know he was talking about race, but to me, it boils down to the same thing. It's something about yourself that you cannot help, that makes people want to sort you.
Yeah, it ain't happening. It won't be long before you categorize their hair to a style and colour, their eyes to a shape and colour, their gender to a binary dude/chick system (or unknown/hermaphrodite), their clothes to a fashion style or colour, their accent to a certain region of the world, and their skincolour to a particular race (hahaha, that word).
But, those are outside indicators! No worries, if you tell me their a jerk... that's a category for personality type. How about their perceived intelligence? Category. Even concepts like 'shoe' are categories: its a type of clothing, one that goes on feet. So is the concept of colour: its categorizing certain mixtures of the visible light spectrum.
So nevermind that labels and pigeon holes are needed in science to describe people or to have them judged without merit... its not even reasonable to not label people.
If you tell me that someone is a 'person,' well, everyone is a 'person' and therefore you told me nothing. Even if we lived in a dystopic society where there was such a thing as a 'non-person' that would still not be enough to tell me about a given person.
I get into this argument that spiraled from an argument on political correctness with my mom when I refer to developmentally delayed and mentally handicapped people as "retards" or "speds" for lack of a concise term. When asked "what should I refer to them as?" she replies with "people" to which I reply "but everyone is a person!" and she says "Bingo" like I just got touchéd. My response is usually "but I don't want to talk about every single person on the planet, I only want to talk about this specific group... whose struggles, culture, and challenges are unique to them and not to everyone else." That has her retracting statements.
Arguably the determinate "race" isn't even that bad. Yes it was used by the whites to justify their attack on the blacks... back then it was also literally thought that the different 'races' of the world where separate species onto themselves, like elves versus dwarves. Honestly, what's wrong with referring to a person with very dark skin as 'black' and someone with really pale skin as 'white' unless an expletive was being used? The KKK can't be taken seriously anymore due to advances in science verifying that blacks and whites were just variations of the human race.
The idea that we should not be labeled is so stupid that I'm baffled people believe it. I think what it is is that the people who believe it are also against unjust discrimination, and therefore they demonetize the idea that a person can be categorized because, well, if you were categorized a 'jew' in Nazi Germany you were sent to a camp to be killed in the most brutal way imaginable. They therefore associate the very idea of categorization with discrimination, prejudice and persecution. While you need a concept to rally for/against in the first place, the existence of the concept in of itself isn't going to kill people.
Having shorthand like a word or chart so you can describe it to someone else doesn't hurt either.Blunderboy said:
Speaking of labels:
I should point out to Mr Christian the the concept that someone could be homosexual is about as ancient a concept as Sigmund Freud. There was still plenty of guy-on-guy action (I mean, look at the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the provisions against it in the Bible), but it was believed that anyone could perform the act and not a certain quadrant of society. Of anything, it was the industrial period where we though sexuality was this black and white. In a way, the label machine gives us labels for each correlating datapoint that isn't necessarily one either end of the spectrum (some even overlap, like the bi/pan thing).Childe said:
I find your argument well reasoned and incredibly well represented.Mikodite said:
Well done sir. While I'm still not convinced that this need to divide and catagorise is for the best I will concede that it's something that will always be there. Human nature and all that jazz.
You have swayed me.
EDIT - I know this is a 'serious thread' and that this may be frowned upon, but this gif pretty much sums up my current feelings.
With all the crazy sexual fetishes that exist in the world, it's the lack of one that you find weird?Lumber Barber said:
O/T According to the kindsey scale I am incredibly boring and exclusively heterosexual, although I didn't really need a test to tell me this.
Also, don't feel bad OP. You just gotta do your research a little better next time.
i dont know if this makes me bi, but i can look at a guy and say "wow he's attractive, he must get all the ladies", but im not aroused in the slightest.Zen Toombs said:
For starters, MY philosophy 101 was at least one different statue of a naked man every class and a pretentious hipster crying about Christianity ruining the world for over 2000 years for one and a half hours twice a week. I wasn't even aware this had anything to do with philosophy.Mikodite said:
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Sexuality as a subjective concept:
Only exists in the mind.
Is a characteristic of an individual
Relates to specific conditions of the mind distinguished from general or universal experience
Sexuality as an objective concept:
.
.
.
Yeah, I think I know what subjective and objective mean
Second and third can be mashed together, I was(i thought obviously) being sarcastic about some people's need to overclassify everything to the point of meaninglessness. If you had to pick on a percentage scale just how gay you are, what do you pick? 32% 88%, 0%, 100%? How do you even figure that out? You don't, because you can't. If you can't accurately put yourself into a classification, there are too many.
Edit: Also on a loosely related topic, Asexual is a method of reproduction that is basically self replication. Unless people suddenly start splitting off into two copies, it doesn't really make any sense to call them that. Nonsexual is a clear, unmistakable, self explanatory word.
Assuming that I have some severe childhood sexual trauma and then proceeded to repress it all is far easier to accept than the fact that I'm just not interested in sex? Are you by chance a proponent of Freudian Psychology?Angryman101 said:
And I don't know anything about my own sexuality and how I view it, all of which is presented here not as fact, but something I took some time in concocting while at work one day, all because you are objectively right, since because.
It's Hollywood psychology to think that every atypical personality trait stems from a traumatic event.Angryman101 said:
A lack of desire does not in any way indicate a phobic aversion.
I mean, you're straight, right?
Were you molested by a rainbow? Involved in a horrible accident at a sausage factory? A victim of fashion police brutality?
But you don't want gay sex?
Thanks, I was starting to feel tired, now I can stay up for fear of Fever dreams involving Clowns and the subsequently ludicrous amounts of cocaine derived from said clown.WaysideMaze said:Dr Rockso g-g-gives you what you want baby. The way you want itRadoh said:
Yeah, as you've already been told, such a scale (and a much simpler one, I think, having tried to follow along with your description) already exists. But of course, there are also subdivisions, and qualifiers, and whole others sets of sexuality with a plethora of prefixes attached. It's quite a complex thing, really.
This kind of thing, ultimately: is why certain mental conditions and general states of being that used to be more categorized are being reduced back down to a single concept which are then based around the individual.
The same reason why they are trying to phase out the various types of schizophrenia (I don't mean to draw too much comparison to sexuality and mental health, it just happens to be what i'm most familiar with, as a person who generally doesn't feel the need to stop and deconstruct their own sexuality) such as paranoid or catatonic schizophrenic .
The same reason why they are trying to phase out the various types of schizophrenia (I don't mean to draw too much comparison to sexuality and mental health, it just happens to be what i'm most familiar with, as a person who generally doesn't feel the need to stop and deconstruct their own sexuality) such as paranoid or catatonic schizophrenic .
This [http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li5x6nPgxi1qczqtfo1_r1_500.jpg] is the closest categorization sheet I have found that accurately expresses orientation and identity. It doesn't split romantic inclination vs sexual inclination, but that's my one gripe about it.