The Nineteen Sexualities and You!

[Unsilenced]

Nonsexual seems like a perversion of the English language to me... though apparently spell check thinks it exists. It also doesn't seem as descriptive. To me, "nonsexual" would mean that I am not in any way sexual, which is not the case. Asexual however indicates a lack of sexual orientation or attraction to either gender, which is more accurate (at least in regards to me.)

To me asexual just sounds more indicative of "does not want to fuck" as opposed to "does not in any way shape or form feel any form of sexuality."

Your millage may vary.

 

[Navvan]

why couldn't I make it black and white? ]

You can, its called interracial.

Well, firstly I've never heard it called "nonsexuality", it's "asexuality".

Secondly, there are multiple genders, so you can't just have a scale that moves between men and women.

Thirdly, it's worth considering creating a separate chart for romantic interest, since who you're romantically interested in can be different to who you're sexually interested.

And fourthly, like you say, there's already charts that show this kind of thing.

That's a personal peeve of mine, I refuse to call it that. You see, Asexuality is a scientific term to denote something that reproduces via Microsis (One cell splits into two identical cells), which is only really found in bacteria, viruses, and the like, so every time I hear someone call me Asexual instead of Nonsexual, I kinda see it as an insult.
I'm far more complex than single celled organisms.
Besides, single celled organisms that reproduce through Microsis exist solely for reproducing, which is also sort of the exact opposite of what it would be referring to in humans.

While I agree it is somewhat confusing since talking about asexuals typically means an organism without sex. Asexual reproduction however is not the same as being asexual. Asexual reproduction litterally means "Reproducing without sex" or to put it another way reproducing without an egg/sperm fertilization type of system. Either way not really appropriate for the case at hand

However the full term for people that do not have sexual interest is not asexual but asexuality meaning without sexuality. This linguistically makes sense, and is not the same as asexual reproduction or being asexual. That ity makes the difference. However people often shorten it to the more common asexual which is bothersome.

Also there are plenty of multi-cellular organisms that can reproduce asexually. It is very common in the plant and fungi kingdoms, and animals as complex as reptiles have reproduced asexually. It could even theoretically happen in humans although would be very unlikely to happen naturally. It is simply not the norm for animals, and even in animals that do have some form of asexual reproduction sexual reproduction usually is the preferred route. However that is not always the case.

 

[pffh]

You seem to be trying to recreate the Kinsey Scale of Sexuality [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale].

 

[Thespian]

-snip-

Doesn't matter in what sense? It's not a living necessity, sure, but Sexuality is a prominent part of our lives and thus it's always interesting knowing more about it. Why is everyone snapping at this like it's trying to categorize people, or put a label on them? Studying something out of a healthy interest is not a bad thing.

Edit: So apparently this already exists and I totally wasted three hours of my time inventing something that already is here with fancy graphs. Go ahead and disregard this thread then, sorry to have wasted your time and confuse a few people over it.

Wouldn't call it a waste of time. It was certainly interesting seeing what you came up with and the thought process behind it.

 

[Radoh]

-snip-

Doesn't matter in what sense? It's not a living necessity, sure, but Sexuality is a prominent part of our lives and thus it's always interesting knowing more about it. Why is everyone snapping at this like it's trying to categorize people, or put a label on them? Studying something out of a healthy interest is not a bad thing.

Edit: So apparently this already exists and I totally wasted three hours of my time inventing something that already is here with fancy graphs. Go ahead and disregard this thread then, sorry to have wasted your time and confuse a few people over it.

Wouldn't call it a waste of time. It was certainly interesting seeing what you came up with and the thought process behind it.

But I don't have graphs, Thespian, where are the graphs?
That's what I thought.

 

[Blunderboy]

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.

"I still find it incredible that we still use the term race as a cultural determinant. To this day?you should have never invited me here because I detest what we?ve done to ourselves out of a need to make ourselves different from one another?we?ve made the word race a way of expressing culture.

There?s no such thing and all you high school students bless your heart for being here. You are a hundred champions right now that are going to go out understanding this. The adults in the room will never understand it. Even though they?ll nod their heads and say you?re right they?ll never be able to stop using the word race as a cultural determinant.

I just heard one of the most prolific statements done by one of the great humanitarians. He?s really trying to organize and bring us all together and he used the word race as if there is a Latino race, an Asian race, Indigenous race, Caucasian race or a Latino race.

There is no such thing as a Latino race, there never has been, there never has been. There never will be. There is only one race and that is what the show brought out. That is the human race period.

Now the pressure comes, why did we start to use the word race as a cultural determinant? The truth is that over six hundred years ago the Caucasian race decided to use it as a cultural determinant so it would be easier for them to kill another culture. That was the total understanding, to kill one culture from another culture. You couldn?t kill your own race so you had to make them the ?other? and you to this day?I?ve spent thirty-seven years of my adult life trying to get this word out and now I am done and well prepared as the admiral of the Battlestar Galactica to say it to all of you?there is but one race. That is it.

So say we all. So say we all. So say we all."


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.

 

[AnarchistFish]

-snip-

Doesn't matter in what sense? It's not a living necessity, sure, but Sexuality is a prominent part of our lives and thus it's always interesting knowing more about it. Why is everyone snapping at this like it's trying to categorize people, or put a label on them? Studying something out of a healthy interest is not a bad thing.

Because everyone gets so obsessed and tedious with it, and becomes obsessed with categorising everything to the nearest detail. And it irritates me when someone tells me they're something like "pansexual". Never been given an explanation which convinces me its that different to bisexuality to bother referring to it differently.

 

[Thespian]

-snip-

Ugh, this annoys me. You are missing the point. You are so very far off the point. The point is a dot to you. I'd have a friends meme made for the occasion but I'm lazy.

Scales like this classify sexuality, yes, but with the end goal of measuring it and examining it. When will people get that no one is trying to divide you and label you by studying sexualities. No one is trying to put you in an internment camp because they discovered you are a pansexual or whatevs. Honestly, very little people care about you. This is about the science of sexuality; Understanding your sexuality better can make things easier for you. Why? Because personal understanding is ALWAYS a good thing. The more you know about yourself, the better of you are. People are always happy to do personality tests or other bullshit but as soon as you make a chart for sexuality, oh look, you're Hitler.

It's especially bad in this case, when it was done out of a personal curiosity and interest. This is about psychology, there is no socio-political agenda. That "People/Also People" graph you made sure is cute but it's totally worthless from any scientific perspective.

The Kinsey Scale or any other such attempt to classify and understand sexuality is not an affront to the ideals of independence or liberty or any of that jazz.

But I don't have graphs, Thespian, where are the graphs?
That's what I thought.

Actually you should totally take a few more hours of your rapidly diminishing, mortal life and make a snazzy graph out of that.

 

[Thespian]

Because everyone gets so obsessed and tedious with it, and becomes obsessed with categorising everything to the nearest detail. And it irritates me when someone tells me they're something like "pansexual". Never been given an explanation which convinces me its that different to bisexuality to bother referring to it differently.

Inquisitive thinking? An urge to categorize? It's called the scientific method, I do believe. I really don't see the harm in it.

Also, there's a simple explanation. Bisexuality is an attraction to either gender. Pansexuality is an attraction regardless of gender. Thus, if you find transexuals appealing you are Pansexual, not bisexual. Also, if you have a preference for either gender, you can't be pansexual. Not that complicated at all.

 

[Blunderboy]

Snippy McSnippington

Fair point well made sweetheart.
I wasn't calling anyone Hitler and I get where you're coming from, but to me, it all seems so pointless. People can and should know what and who they are without needing a word or a chart to describe that.

 

[Childe]

I can't help but imagine this chart as some freaky hexagon, where the two vertical perpendicular lines taper pretty damn rapidly at the bottom to "No sir I don't like it", and the top points straight to "Captain Jack Harkness".

You sir/madam get a TARDIS shaped star for that reference =/:}

OT: I don't think you can make sexuality black and white. being a christian i think it was meant to be but isn't anymore

 

[zehydra]

Why does it have to be denoted more than Gay/Straight/Bi? How the hell does it matter how "much" bi you are? Why is it relevant?
I just don't see the point with putting numbers on what you prefer. "I prefer girls over guys, but some guys are hot enough for me to like them" should be enough.
If you are sexually aroused by another sex, then you aren't straight. How OFTEN you are aroused is pretty pointless.
(And make note that if you are aroused, but still do not have sex with the object of your desire, then you are still not straight in my mind. Arousal is enough, and no, thinking "Hey, that girl/guy is pretty hot" is not arousal. Arousal is wanting to have sexual contact)

This. Liking men doesn't necessarily mean you're gay, but it sure as hell means you aren't straight.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

ALready in place as has been mentioned, but there is one very significant category that most people forget.

Romantic.

People don't just have sexuality, they also have feelings of romance or not. Romanticism is things like holding hands, cuddling, kissing (some define it as sexual only, others as romantic or sexual, some as both)

Now for most people they feel romance in the same way that they feel sexuality. They feel like they want to have romantic relationships with the people they sleep with (mainly, there are of course exceptions where the sexual need outdoes any concern of romance) However, some people might only want to have romantic relationships. Quite a few A-sexuals I know still like the idea of having that level of emotional closeness, and even hugging/kssing someone they like in that way, without ever wanting to have sex ever.

For myself, I classify myself as heterosexual biromantic. I have in the past and would again form a relationship with another man which was as close as any relationship with a woman, but I have no sexual feelings for penises, or in general for the male physique. I can appreciate a good male body as being nice, but I don't get lusty about it.

The best description I ever heard for it was right here on this site. 'You want to sleep with Stephanie but snugle with Stephen.'

 

[Rahnzan]

Hetero
Homo
Bisexual
Asexual
That's all there is. I refuse to acknowledge "pansexual," that's some straight up new world hippie garbage invented by pretentious bisexuals. You got a preference? Big deal. Lack one? Who cares. We don't need to invent a whole new sexuality just for you. I think gender not being a factor in who you choose as a partner is rather the default and further more THE WHOLE POINT of being bisexual.

 

[Sethzard]

Isn't this similar to the Kinsey scale?

 

[Angryman101]

I don't think a "nonsexual" or "asexual" exists. There's only so far that we can go resisting our natural urges.
..I actually think it's a mechanic to hide the facts that you're sexually frustrated.

We're in agreement. Either people falsely claim to be asexual because they've given up on the dating market or some traumatic event in their past has made their sex drive dry up. I don't think naturally occurring asexuals exist.

Okay, so to start, some backstory of why I came up with this: Yesterday I was forced to discuss sexuality with a man who believed it was a black and white, set in stone thing, you are either Gay or Straight (Bisexuality is something he doesn't believe in) which really irked me since I know better.

Hah.

 

[GloatingSwine]

19?

I thought the Kinsey scale only went up to seven or so?

Or have we invented some new ways to fuck since then?

 

[Zaik]

So, you made up a number of arbitrary points in grey area and decided they count as additional sexualities just because?

I don't get the motivation behind this, really. Is 19 more accurate than 3? is 100 more accurate than 19? Is 2500 more accurate than 100?

Honestly it sounds like you tried to draw an objective graph for a completely subjective concept, I think you pretty much just wasted your time tbh.

Edit: Just took the "Kinsey Scale Test", apparently he wasted his time too. Tried to put me down as Non-Sexual despite me specifically saying I felt sexual attraction. Maybe that website is just broken.

 

[Unsilenced]

I don't think a "nonsexual" or "asexual" exists. There's only so far that we can go resisting our natural urges.
..I actually think it's a mechanic to hide the facts that you're sexually frustrated.

We're in agreement. Either people falsely claim to be asexual because they've given up on the dating market or some traumatic event in their past has made their sex drive dry up. I don't think naturally occurring asexuals exist.

I think if you talk to some asexuals you will find that's not the case.

Personally, I've never pursued sex or even a date. In middle school I asked some girls to dance with mixed results, but I have never set out with the intention of getting into someone else's pants.

As for traumatic experiences... I got nothing. I've never been abused, and to my knowledge none of the other asexuals I know have either.

I just look at the whole practice of sex and think, "why would you do that?"

I agree with OP, I've always thought that sexuality was more of a spectrum than just black and white. I wouldn't exactly call myself a bisexual, I prefer women over men, but I also acknowledge my capacity for sexual interest in and even sexual relations with another man. I'm still not sure about "asexuals" though, it seems like something that would have been stamped out by evolution, and even then people who say they are are using the term wrong, it actually describes an organism that can produce offspring with only its own genetic material. It just seems scientifically unlikely that we have such a complex mechanism for romantic interest, sexual desire and sexual reproduction, and then have a person where all of that is not functioning at every level due to genetics, then have that be as common as it is. Emotional/psychological trauma is the only thing I can think of that could suppress those chemical and neurological processes. Or they could just be massive pricks who feels that sexual desire is below their impressive intellect and enlightened humanity, and some "asexuals" are like that, I know one personally. Either that or you were molested as a child and are blocking out the memory.

If sexuality is genetic, then wouldn't gays be just as unlikely as asexuals?