Sexual Orientation

[7Deadly$ins]

I'm grey-asexual!

 

When I'm in one of my 'sexual' phases, though, I identify as hetero.

 

The phases are very erratic in length, too. For a whole month, I'll be sexual then *BOOM* I'll be Grey-A for like a week, then go back to being sexual for a day, then switch back... It's all very confusing!

I thought this was... normal. People don't usually have the same level of sex drive every single day. Especially with women, it tends to be related to the menstrual cycle a bit and varying hormone levels.

[MedievalMystic]

...anytime anyone says being gay is a choice, I like to ask them when they chose to be straight.

 

I love it! That is an awesome comeback! If I hear anyone ever say again that being gay is a choice, I'm going to ask them that question. >

[Wandering Mew]

Is it okay if I don't know what I am? I don't like sex, making out, or even being kissed by my parents. I dread being hugged or hugging people, or basically any contact at all.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I crave companionship as much as any other person. It's physical contact I don't like.

 

For now I label myself as asexual, mostly for my complete lack of a sex drive.

[MedievalMystic]

I think it's ok. I'm the same way. I don't like people, especially strangers that I don't know from Adam, in my space. At all. It makes me totally uncomfortable, especially in a dating situation. God forbid some guy tried to kiss me on a first date. It would be the last date. lol I don't label myself anything. I like guys, and I like to take my time getting to know them. I feel nothing sexual for any guy at first, not really. That takes some time with me. If that means that I fall into some catagory, well, so be it. I just know what works for me. You will too, eventually. I wouldn't sweat it too much.

[Wandering Mew]

I think it's ok. I'm the same way. I don't like people, especially strangers that I don't know from Adam, in my space. At all. It makes me totally uncomfortable, especially in a dating situation. God forbid some guy tried to kiss me on a first date. It would be the last date. lol I don't label myself anything. I like guys, and I like to take my time getting to know them. I feel nothing sexual for any guy at first, not really. That takes some time with me. If that means that I fall into some catagory, well, so be it. I just know what works for me. You will too, eventually. I wouldn't sweat it too much.

I don't really worry about it, except for most of my family thinking I'm some kind of hermit because I have no romantic life. Hello, I'm much more social than I was a few years ago, how can you think I'm a hermit just because I don't date?

[KageSora]

Sometimes I feel like my sexuality is ever-changing. It took me years to admit to myself that there might be some bi-ness in my lesbian label-choice, and now things are seeming to get even more complicated. I still wonder if I may be asexual, but then I feel stupid for even thinking that because can I be asexual when I write, and enjoy writing, tons of graphic sex scenes? But when it comes to real life, it's not the same... maybe demisexual. Only two people I've ever been intimate with, it didn't happen until after I had totally fallen for them.

 

*shrugs* I have no idea.

Sexuality can be fluid! It does change for some people over time. I think I've seen some people refer to themselves as having fluid sexuality, too, where it changes.

 

And hey--aces can totally be into "adult" things of extreme graphicness when it comes to a fictional setting. I'm an ace and I love reading and writing smut myself, I've written things ranging from fluffy stuff to threeways to crack to dark stuff. I love a good sex scene be it m/m, m/f, or f/f--or some combination with more than two people.

 

But, when it comes to real life... There's just no sexual attraction, therefore I identify as asexual. If you only found them sexually attractive after being romantically attracted to them, then it could be demisexuality. :3

 

Though, again with the aces liking porn thing, that's cool. I mean, in most cases the plumbing works--there's just no real desire to have another person make use of it with you. Plenty of aces like to have some "alone time", too. It's the attraction that matters.

 

I thought this was... normal. People don't usually have the same level of sex drive every single day. Especially with women, it tends to be related to the menstrual cycle a bit and varying hormone levels.

Mmmm, there's a difference between sex drive and sexual attraction though. That's what gray-asexuality is.

 

From what I understand, people might go through periods where they do find other people sexually appealing, then periods where they find people attractive but are not sexually attracted to them.

 

Honestly, the only time I have much of a "sex drive" is during the Red Falls, but there's never any attraction there. I get turned on, but I never see a person or think about a person and be like "Oh man, I'd like to have sex with them!" For me, even during those times the minute it becomes personal, the minute I enter the equation in any thoughts about anything sexual, I'm instantly turned off. I get aroused, but I don't want to think about myself in a sexual situation nor do I want to be in a sexual situation personally.

[MedievalMystic]

I don't really worry about it, except for most of my family thinking I'm some kind of hermit because I have no romantic life.  Hello, I'm much more social than I was a few years ago, how can you think I'm a hermit just because I don't date?

 

Yeah, I've never quite gotten that mentality. I like quiet time alone. Even when I'm in a relationship. I haven't been in a relationship in a while for various reasons, but I'd rather be alone 5 years and meet one really worthy, good person that truly makes me happy, rather than go through a lot of losers just to HAVE somebody, in that same time span, well, if that makes me odd or something, I guess I'll have to live with it. lol

 

 

demisexuality. :3

 

I had no idea that even existed until this moment. I'm going to have to google it.

Edited March 8, 2013 by MedievalMystic

[KageSora]

Basically, demisexuality is only being sexually attracted to people after you form a deep emotional attachment to them.

 

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if demisexuality was the default!

[MedievalMystic]

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if demisexuality was the default!

 

I think you're right.. lol

 

I did google it, and it was interesting. I didn't read the whole thing, but enought to get the gist of it. I can be attracted to guys...I wouldn't go out with them otherwise...but I really don't feel like OMG I'VE GOT TO HAVE THIS GUY TONIGHT! In fact, I don't have to have him for the next 6 months, even if I do feel a sexual attraction by that point. It just all depends on how things are going mentally for me. I think I have some of the characteristics of demisexuality, but not everything.

[TikindiDragon]

My son is gay - and while he's open about it around friends and family, he is pretty close lipped about it in any other setting. The ONE time he made is semi-public (facebook) he got fired from his job. Yeah....they cited some absolute BS but I know the real reason. Proving it is pretty much impossible since this is a right to work state and you can be fired for no reason at all, but still....ugh

Now, see, this is why Unions are a *good* thing. No company would contemplate doing that in the UK, and if they did the Union would fight them (assuming said person was a Union member, anyway).

[Moriwen]

I was raised VERY Orthodox Roman Catholic. VERY. Church 7 days a week, Epiphany was just as big a deal as Christmas, etc.

 

As another very orthodox Roman Catholic, I'd like to say that not all Catholics hold the views you've outlined here.

 

I don't think that being attracted to members of the same sex is a choice; that's just silly. Nor do I believe it's wrong. I do believe that acting on that desire is wrong, but I try to follow the teaching to "hate the sin, love the sinner" and "remove the beam in your own eye."

 

Eventually, I came to see Catholics, and much of Christianity in general, as bigoted, insulated, unyielding, and terminally closed and backward

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. (That was genuine--not snarky.) I can understand why you would, if that's the side of Catholicism you've been exposed to.

 

For what it's worth, I also believe divorce and remarriage is wrong, and have much more of a problem with that than with gay marriage.

 

And as a final note, since you brought it up:

 

And most of them do not have close enough friendships with gays to understand how erroneous this assumption is.

 

I have close friendships with several gay people, one of whom just got married to a member of the same sex. I certainly don't believe she's a bad person; I think she's one of the best people I know. I don't agree with all her choices, but how many people are there that you agree with everything they do? I'm happy that she's happy.

 

 

Anyhow, not to get rant-y, but Catholics aren't all the same. Even the very orthodox.

 

 

 

(Edited to adjust formatting.)

Edited March 8, 2013 by Moriwen

[Bacon_Strips]

I have to agree with you, Moriwen, those are my beliefs in a nutshell.

[Svataben]

I don't think that being attracted to members of the same sex is a choice; that's just silly. Nor do I believe it's wrong. I do believe that acting on that desire is wrong,

See, that's what I have a problem with.

 

You think that god created homosexuals, gave them no choice in that, and then proceeded to deny them romantic love and sex completely.

What cruelty.

 

Such a cruel god cannot be good, nor merciful.

 

I honestly think that, if there is such a thing as a deity (or several deities), mankind has misunderstood completely, and are hurting each other over these things they just guess to be right.

[KageSora]

See, that's what I have a problem with.

 

You think that god created homosexuals, gave them no choice in that, and then proceeded to deny them romantic love and sex completely.

What cruelty.

Just to to point out, it's fully possible for them to have a romantically fulfilling relationship without sex. Sex =/= love. Sex is often tied in with love, but it isn't always.

 

That said, nobody should be told that it's wrong for them to express their love physically for the partner(s) that they are naturally attracted to, simply because it's "different" or whatever. There's nothing wrong with acting on a sexual desire with somebody of the same sex as you so long as all parties involved consent to both the sex and the specific acts performed--just the same as if they're not the same sex as you.

[Svataben]

I don't think a relationship where both want sex, but aren't allowed, can ever be considered fulfilling.

[KageSora]

I don't think a relationship where both want sex, but aren't allowed, can ever be considered fulfilling.

I agree--I never said that I didn't.

 

But not every relationship consists only of people who want sex.

 

There are people who are asexual but homoromantic--they're ROMANTICALLY attracted to people of the same sex as themselves, but they themselves don't want/need sex to find the relationships fulfilling.

 

Other relationships between sexual people have both parties with low sex drives, and therefor both parties are alright without sex.

 

Or other times both parties are perfectly happy with a romantic relationship that doesn't involve sex.

 

It is absolutely possible to have a fulfilling romantic relationship but not want sex.

 

But, like I said, not every romantic relationships is between two people who want to have sex.

 

Sex =/= romance. You can have sex with people you aren't romantically attracted to, yes? One night stands, people you meet at a bar for a night, sex workers, etc. So the opposite should naturally hold true--that you can be romantically attracted to a person you don't have sex with.

[Svataben]

You have point, just not one relevant in this context at all.

 

The vast, VAST, majority of the homosexuals have the same drive as the general population, and their adult, romantic relationships will not be fulfilled if they are not allowed to express their love physically.

Thus, this supposed god is cruel to these people. Cruel and not merciful.

[Richied97]

I am heterosexual . I have no problem with bi or gays. I know that it is not a Choice and I am cool with people of that orientation. People with other beliefs hating bi sexually or gays are pretty retarded.

[Wookieinmashoo]

 

I recently saw this commercial and I'd thought I'd dump the link here. Unfortunately I don't know how to remove the hyperlink because there is some bad language in the comments. Mod help?

[MaggieXawesomeness]

 

I recently saw this commercial and I'd thought I'd dump the link here. Unfortunately I don't know how to remove the hyperlink because there is some bad language in the comments. Mod help?

I saw this when it first came out, and LOVED IT. I like how it doesn't even make any stink about the gay man or anything, doesn't focus on it, or act like it's any sort of a deal.

Too bad we can't get this beauty on TV.

[KageSora]

You have point, just not one relevant in this context at all.

 

The vast, VAST, majority of the homosexuals have the same drive as the general population, and their adult, romantic relationships will not be fulfilled if they are not allowed to express their love physically.

Thus, this supposed god is cruel to these people. Cruel and not merciful.

I fail to see how it's not relevant.

 

It is very relevant, because you appeared to be operating under the incredibly incorrect assumption that a relationship CANNOT be fulfilling unless there is sex involved. That's what your first post seemed to indicate--which, I admit, is a natural assumption since society to day is very sexually charged and plays up the worth and importance of sex to an obscene degree.

 

There are sexual people who have fulfilling relationships but don't have sex. Sex is not the be-all, end-all of a relationship.

 

Honestly, I'm inclined to think that if a relationship CANNOT be fulfilling without sex, then it's doomed to fail anyway. After all, what if one partner has an STD? Should they, then, NEVER be allowed to have a relationship because it will never be fulfilling? Protection isn't 100%, so they can never have truly safe sex unless it's with another infected person--but there ARE people who are willing to have a relationship with infected people because they love them, even if sex isn't involved. As long as they're upfront about their infection, I don't see any reason why they should be barred from having a relationship with anybody who isn't infected as well.

 

What if one person is injured, or has some illness that prevents them from having sex for a prolonged period of time/permanently? Then their relationship is doomed.

 

Relationships need to be able to be fulfilling even if there isn't sex happening.

 

Sex is a wonderful thing when both parties want and enjoy it--it's definitely awesome for people to be able to engage in it.

 

I'm just saying it's not the ONLY way to have a fulfilling relationship.

 

I never said that I disagree that it would be cruel of a god to create people then deny them the ability to fulfill the natural urges they were born with--I fully agree with that.

 

But I DID disagree with the idea that a relationship cannot be fulfilling unless there is sex involved. While many homosexuals would fall under the category of those who want sex in a relationship, it's not right to just assume that all of them require sex to have a fulfilling relationship.

[Svataben]

I fail to see how it's not relevant.

 

It is very relevant, because you appeared to be operating under the incredibly incorrect assumption that a relationship CANNOT be fulfilling unless there is sex involved.

No. I specifically wrote romantic relationship.

 

Also, since there are quite clearly lots of gay people created that way, wanting sexual expression of their romantic love, my point of the cruel god stands.

 

I could have used some asexual disclaimer, but really, that is not the point.

The only point I was making was, that this supposed god created gay people only to deny them their very nature. This is cruel etc.

That's it, that's all. That's the point.

 

Whether or not some people are asexual is besides that point.

[KageSora]

No. I specifically wrote romantic relationship.

 

Also, since there are quite clearly lots of gay people created that way, wanting sexual expression of their romantic love, my point of the cruel god stands.

 

I could have used some asexual disclaimer, but really, that is not the point.

The only point I was making was, that this supposed god created gay people only to deny them their very nature. This is cruel etc.

That's it, that's all. That's the point.

 

Whether or not some people are asexual is besides that point.

No, you specifically wrote "romantic love and sex" (bold mine).

 

romantic love and sex

 

And I'm saying that you don't have to be asexual to have a romantic relationship that's fulfilling but doesn't require sex. There are sexual people who have perfectly fulfilling relationships but who don't have sex.

 

Not every sexual person absolutely has to have sex to make their relationship fulfilling--this goes for homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, whatever-sexuals.

 

You can be sexual and have a low sex drive. You can be sexual but have an illness or injury that prevents you from having sex for whatever reason. You can be sexual and choose to refrain from sex for whatever reason.

 

 

I agree that if both individuals are those who WANT sex, it's cruel to deny them their natural desires. But I'm just pointing out that sexual people can have romantically fulfilling relationships without sex. It's not impossible. It doesn't "never happen".

[Svataben]

No, you specifically wrote "romantic love and sex" (bold mine).

 

 

 

And I'm saying that you don't have to be asexual to have a romantic relationship that's fulfilling but doesn't require sex.

Yes, love and sex. I was talking about those who wanted romantic love and sex, not one without the other.

 

And this is what makes your, otherwise entirely correct, points irrelevant here. I was talking about people wanting love together with sex, love and sex.

 

I... I just don't know why you decided to give me a minority lecture.

[KageSora]

Mostly because tone carries badly over text, and I've seen people who use "and" but don't actually mean the two together but mean both components but not necessarily connected to each other (am I making sense? I feel like I'm not getting the words to my fingers to explain what I thought you meant)

 

But, it's also something that really needs to be said--there's a disturbing number of people who assume that you cannot have a relationship that doesn't involve sex. And that's a dangerous attitude.