Sexual Orientation

[Dr. Paine]

I'm sorta confused on the whole "demi-sexual" thing. Isn't that the same as being hetero?

Anywho, I'm a girl, and I like guys.

Nope. Demisexuality is closest to pansexuality, from what I've come to understand. Physical sex and gender identity don't matter (on the whole- some may only find themselves able to form the necessary emotional/romantic connections to a particular sex, but that's a whole other kettle of fish), attraction forms following a strong emotional connection. Otherwise, there's little to no sex drive/attraction to random people.

 

... did that make sense?

Edited November 16, 2011 by Dr. Paine

[helix9]

Heterosexual, but with no motivation to have a relationship. Sure, I've thought about it at times, but I think I'm too selfish to ever really get over the fact that I just really need time by myself and my privacy to do so. In short, I'm not good at sharing, and reciprocity is hugely important in a lasting relationship.

[Obscure_Trash]

And don't get me started on asexuality. Chances are, you will find one thing mildly arousing in your life. Normally, while you're doing the act. It's a rare person who doesn't.

That's why we've only been able to estimate that 1% of the population is asexual.

 

I'm sorta confused on the whole "demi-sexual" thing. Isn't that the same as being hetero?

 

Nope! :3 Demi means that you are only sexually attracted to someone you are either in a relationship with or have romantic attraction for. You can be hetero-demisexual, homo-demisexual, bi-demisexual, pan-demisexual or whatever else.

The aven lexicon specifies it as exactly: "A person who experiences sexual attraction only to people with whom they are in an close relationship, often a romantic one"

 

Most pansexual people I've met are just bi with lower standards, 

 

Assume there are more women in the world. This is like saying that straight men or lesbians are just sexuals/asexuals with lower standards because there are more women in the world.

 

Yes, pan- is a kind of confusing term, because some bi- people are 'technically' pan- because they feel like that's what bi- means, but there are some that feel that bi- is too limiting and so go by pan-.

 

and most asexuals just have low sex drives.

And, if I may be honestly, two of the "asexuals" I've met have had higher sex drives than me. =|

 

Hi, I'm Sock. You've now met one with absolutely no drive. Hang out on AVEN; you'll meet a lot more. :3

[Rosedamai]

Many of you are confused as to what to call your sexual orientation, and resort to labelling it as a mix of a million different "terms".

 

I'm sorry, but what? Many of you "are"? Rather than "I think many of you are"? No offense, but that really sounds patronizing to me. Fine, I'll try to clearly define my sexual orientation. According to the Kinsey scale, there are levels 0 to 6, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual. (Yes, there are some, like pansexuality and asexuality that don't come into this scale) In that scale, with 3 being bisexual, I'd rate somewhere around 2 or 2.5. That would be "Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual." Clear?

 

As for the part where you stated that people like that are "confused", well, I'm not, I'm a legal adult who've struggled many years to come to terms with my sexual identity and I find that sort of sweeping generalizations about so-called "unclear" statements, to be frank, annoying. It sounds as if you're saying that "Oh, this is too confusing for me and I don't understand what you're saying, so I'll just say that you're confused instead, and try to make sense of this." This is totally ignoring an individual's point they made about THEIR sexual orientation-if the person in question is an adult, I'd say they're pretty clear about that issue and you shouldn't just lump them as confused just because you don't understand what they're saying.

 

And yes, there are many situations where you will get aroused, but in the course of a person's lifetime it generally fits into a coherent pattern. That's why it's called sexual orientation rather than "short bursts of sexual attraction."

Edited November 16, 2011 by ylangylang

[PlutoIsHades]

What I'm trying to say is, there are many different situations that can make you aroused, and it's really not needed to make up a new term for each one. It just makes it way more confusing.

So you'd rather we just had hetero, homo, and bi, and then everybody else would have absolutely no place to go?

[Fuzzbucket]

So you'd rather we just had hetero, homo, and bi, and then everybody else would have absolutely no place to go?

I'd rather we had no terms at all. But then I'm one who believes that all sexuality is on a sliding scale and that very very few of us indeed are at the extremest ends.

 

I could say that I am heterosexual - as that is virtually all I have ever been into, in terms of pairings (leaving out a brief foray in my youth...) But I can conceive of falling in love with a woman, and then I would want to make love with her - and I don't see that as making me suddenly gay, any more that I can honestly say I am totally heterosexual now.

 

Nor would it make me bi, as I also believe in monogamy, so while that relationship lasted, woman-woman sex would be all I was doing. Then again - I can conceive of years of no interest, while I wasn't in love with anyone, say, or even just didn't feel like it. That wouldn't make me asexual, either.

 

I just hate labels. They do nothing more than restrict.

[Felicityluff]

I'm probably a cross between heterosexual and asexual. I mean, I know I'm leaning over to the guy's team, but at the same time I never was interest in love and dating. It kind of feels awkward to me, you know? Like the "falling in love only happens in movies" kind of thing. I know that can't be completely true, but still...

 

I don't really have any bi/homo friends nor do I know of anyone close to me who is, but I definitely have nothing against non-hetero people. I mean, they're still people, right? Just like everyone else. <3

[JaziandCo]

I always thought only being attracted to a person you had strong emotional ties with was normal =P I might be able to determine on my own if a guy is handsome or not, but once I'm in a relationship all guys look like all the other guys except my one, who looks like, smells like, and pretty much is the best thing ever. Once I'm with someone, everyone else fades to the background. If I'm not with someone, like right now, it's harder for me to branch out and "chase" someone who I think I might be attracted to.

 

I'm a female-bodied male attracted sexually to men, though occasionally I've fallen for a girl. It's always non-physical affection because the very thought of me doing more than holding hands or having the person in my lap wigs me out to no end, so it's easier to just stick with guys. x3

[dragon_mando]

Many of you are confused as to what to call your sexual orientation, and resort to labelling it as a mix of a million different "terms".

Uh huh. As the person that posted panromantic demisexual I can be pretty darned certain that I'm not confused in the least. I can be romantically inclined toward anyone of any gender but am only sexually attracted to someone I know well. That's not confusion.

 

I guess it just boggles me, seeing terms like pansexual are just too similar to bi to really stand out to me. Honestly, my first thought when I hear pansexual is: "Really? ... Everything...? OK, uh, what about that horse? What about my couch? What about this thing I just found under my couch? Are you attracted to all of those, too?"

Bi doesn't include genderfluid, non-gendered, intersexed, or transgender attraction. Pansexual does.

 

Most pansexual people I've met are just bi with lower standards, and most asexuals just have low sex drives.

Define lower standards. I've actually been told by people of all currently living generations that I'm frighteningly picky about the people I'll be inclined to date to the point that I may as well just give up and be celibate if my current relationship doesn't work out. Even my shrink says that I have unhealthily high standards and will probably end up alone because of them.

 

It sounds as if you're saying that "Oh, this is too confusing for me and I don't understand what you're saying, so I'll just say that you're confused instead, and try to make sense of this." This is totally ignoring an individual's point they made about THEIR sexual orientation-if the person in question is an adult, I'd say they're pretty clear about that issue and you shouldn't just lump them as confused just because you don't understand what they're saying.

^This

 

And yes, there are many situations where you will get aroused, but in the course of a person's lifetime it generally fits into a coherent pattern. That's why it's called sexual orientation rather than "short bursts of sexual attraction."

^Also this.

Edited November 16, 2011 by dragon_mando

[War Pig Killer]

Panromantic asexual here, though just because I haven't experienced sexual attraction yet doesn't mean I won't in the future. *shrugs* Since I haven't felt sexual attraction yet, I have no reason yet to suspect I'll be sexual other than most other people being sexual. But that's hardly a good reason.

[Princess Artemis]

I'd rather we had no terms at all. But then I'm one who believes that all sexuality is on a sliding scale and that very very few of us indeed are at the extremest ends.

As one of the people on the extreme edge of the bell-curve, I'd rather not be lumped in with all the rest of the sexual people who have had experiences all their lives that I can barely comprehend. To place that label makes assumptions about me that Just Ain't So.

 

Just because sexual people can't understand how the world works without sexual attraction doesn't mean asexuals don't exist.

[Kestra15]

I'd rather we had no terms at all. But then I'm one who believes that all sexuality is on a sliding scale and that very very few of us indeed are at the extremest ends.

I very definitely have no romantic or sexual feelings towards any males, of any flavour. So no 'sliding scale' or 'concieving of falling in love' for a bloke here. The very thought that I personally could like a man in that way does make me uncomfortable, to put it in mild and unoffensive terms.

[Shienvien]

I very definitely have no romantic or sexual feelings towards any males, of any flavour. So no 'sliding scale' or 'conceiving of falling in love' for a bloke here. The very thought that I personally could like a man in that way does make me uncomfortable, to put it in mild and unoffensive terms.

Replace the 'males' and 'man' with 'females' and 'woman' and you've essentially got me. Already being physically close to a woman is uncomfortable at times, even if no feelings are involved. A quick hug is the most I will accept from another woman, and even like that, I've never felt the want to hug another female myself. I also can't find a woman attractive, and don't have any preferences over a woman's appearance whatsoever - I simply can't my brain to care about it.

 

The same does not apply for men... And here I have to admit that even when I don't show it, it does bother some subconscious part of me when I can't tell whether a person is male or female. (It, however, occurs extremely rarely. I might mis-classify trans folk, though, but that probably doesn't make a difference when it is purely internal for me. )

[Zovesta]

True, but that is so rare. Most women will find at least one single woman in this whole world attractive. I don't think men are as flexible, but I could be wrong.

[Cori]

I'm asexual. I've had one or two boyfriends in the past, but only one relationship was 'serious' and I don't think either of us ever liked each other more than 'just friends'. I have no interest in either gender.

[Kestra15]

True, but that is so rare. Most women will find at least one single woman in this whole world attractive. I don't think men are as flexible, but I could be wrong.

Amerylis makes two on this forum already.

[Obscure_Trash]

True, but that is so rare. Most women will find at least one single woman in this whole world attractive. I don't think men are as flexible, but I could be wrong.

I think there's a big difference between finding someone attractive and being attracted to them in some way. It's likely you will be attracted to someone you find attractive and those you don't like will be less attractive to you, but there are people who I find have horrendous personalities but are pretty hot, annoyingly enough. D:

 

Also, men tend to use 'buff' or 'muscular' for other men rather than 'hot' or 'good looking', like women might. ;P

[Zovesta]

Amerylis makes two on this forum already.

I said rare, not nonexistent.

 

Also, yarr, Sock. Of course, as I said before, fantasy plays into it quite a bit as well. :B

[Sadako]

Most pansexual people I've met are just bi with lower standards

 

Whoa there nelly! I have low standards do I? Because I don't think intersex and trans people are unattractive freaks? I... uh...

 

I mean, I get that that was probably not really your point, but ouch!

 

 

 

Also: Nor would it make me bi, as I also believe in monogamy

 

What?? Where in the world did you get that? Just because a person is attracted to both men and women does not mean that they slink around with anything that has legs all day every day! (This is a HUGE prejudice and I don't appreciate it.) Think of it this way: You're attracted to men, yes? When you're with one man, the other ones don't stop being attractive, but that attractiveness does not compel you to mess around with them, does it? So why would it compel me just because I have a larger category of people I find attractive?

 

...and I'm one of the ones who actually is okay with open relationships.

[Zovesta]

Most pansexual people I've met are just bi with lower standards

 

Whoa there nelly! I have low standards do I? Because I don't think intersex and trans people are unattractive freaks? I... uh...

 

I mean, I get that that was probably not really your point, but ouch!

Lol, I didn't mean any offense when I said low standards. I have some extremely low ones myself. I just meant that they were more likely to like more people than the average bi, basically.

[Sadako]

Maybe 'low standards' doesn't mean the same thing to me as it means to you... to me that sounds like you're saying you think pansexuals (which I still think is a weird term) have poor taste, or don't have the ability to control themselves, which is something that people who aren't exclusively gay or straight are often accused of. There's a bigger pool of people that I might find attractive, but I don't find all of the people in that pool attractive any more than gay men find all men attractive or any more than straight men find all women attractive. Just because I'm bi (or pan or whatever you want to call it, I don't see that much difference between the two, especially considering I didn't know what pan meant until a few days ago) does not mean I throw requirements out the window. You still have to be interesting, fun to spend time with, and pretty if you want to catch my eye.

[SPQR]

I'm sorry, but what? Many of you "are"? Rather than "I think many of you are"? No offense, but that really sounds patronizing to me. Fine, I'll try to clearly define my sexual orientation. According to the Kinsey scale, there are levels 0 to 6, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual. (Yes, there are some, like pansexuality and asexuality that don't come into this scale) In that scale, with 3 being bisexual, I'd rate somewhere around 2 or 2.5. That would be "Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual." Clear?

 

As for the part where you stated that people like that are "confused", well, I'm not, I'm a legal adult who've struggled many years to come to terms with my sexual identity and I find that sort of sweeping generalizations about so-called "unclear" statements, to be frank, annoying. It sounds as if you're saying that "Oh, this is too confusing for me and I don't understand what you're saying, so I'll just say that you're confused instead, and try to make sense of this." This is totally ignoring an individual's point they made about THEIR sexual orientation-if the person in question is an adult, I'd say they're pretty clear about that issue and you shouldn't just lump them as confused just because you don't understand what they're saying.

 

And yes, there are many situations where you will get aroused, but in the course of a person's lifetime it generally fits into a coherent pattern. That's why it's called sexual orientation rather than "short bursts of sexual attraction."

Sorry if it came off as patronizing, but many people have clearly posted that they are confused as to what to call their sexual orientation.

 

I never said that anyone who isn't 100% straight or gay is confused about their orientation. It's just that some people actually said they were confused, and I commented that I don't like all the different labels for that reason.

 

So you'd rather we just had hetero, homo, and bi, and then everybody else would have absolutely no place to go?

 

Not at all.

I just wish people would say it as it is, instead of trying to pigeonhole their orientation into a mix of different labels.

 

I'd rather we had no terms at all. But then I'm one who believes that all sexuality is on a sliding scale and that very very few of us indeed are at the extremest ends.

 

...

 

I just hate labels. They do nothing more than restrict.

 

This sums it up pretty well, actually.

Edited November 16, 2011 by SPQR

[Zovesta]

Maybe 'low standards' doesn't mean the same thing to me as it means to you... to me that sounds like you're saying you think pansexuals (which I still think is a weird term) have poor taste, or don't have the ability to control themselves, which is something that people who aren't exclusively gay or straight are often accused of. There's a bigger pool of people that I might find attractive, but I don't find all of the people in that pool attractive any more than gay men find all men attractive or any more than straight men find all women attractive. Just because I'm bi (or pan or whatever you want to call it, I don't see that much difference between the two, especially considering I didn't know what pan meant until a few days ago) does not mean I throw requirements out the window. You still have to be interesting, fun to spend time with, and pretty if you want to catch my eye.

Fffff oh god, please, please, please don't group me in with that clump of people, I hate it when people think that way. I guess when I think low standards, it's that you find more people attractive, but not necessarily mate-worthy. Is that a bit clearer?

[Fuzzbucket]

Also: Nor would it make me bi, as I also believe in monogamy

 

What?? Where in the world did you get that? Just because a person is attracted to both men and women does not mean that they slink around with anything that has legs all day every day! (This is a HUGE prejudice and I don't appreciate it.) Think of it this way: You're attracted to men, yes? When you're with one man, the other ones don't stop being attractive, but that attractiveness does not compel you to mess around with them, does it? So why would it compel me just because I have a larger category of people I find attractive?

Please read what I said - it all has to go together.

 

You say

You're attracted to men, yes?

Well, I am attracted to the one I am with.

When you're with one man, the other ones don't stop being attractive, but that attractiveness does not compel you to mess around with them, does it?

It is simply totally irrelevant. I wouldn't be LOOKING at other men (or women, come to that - I have said I could easily fall in love with a woman, were I not in a relationship already.) I don't LOOK at other people of any gender that way unless I am on the market. I look at them as people, and that's all.

So why would it compel me just because I have a larger category of people I find attractive?

When I am on the market - I am almost as open to all possibilities as you are. But when I pick up on one - the others fall.

 

I would - when with a man - be in a heterosexual relationship. At that time my sexual activity would be exclusively heterosexual. If I later fell in love with a women, my sexual activity would be woman-woman. I would not call my self lesbian at that point, not heterosexual when with a man. Nor would I call myself bi at any time. (Which is where that sentence came from - taken out of context it makes no sense.)

 

My point was that I would not CALL myself anything. I hate labels. I was not in ANY way suggesting that monogamy was the same as not being bi. I am not "attracted to men and women" because when in a relationship I don't look at other people in that way at all. So I am not bi, (or lesbian, or heterosexual - I am simply totally committed to whomever I am with.)

 

This was what I actually said that you have pulled one bit from and misunderstood:

I could say that I am heterosexual - as that is virtually all I have ever been into, in terms of pairings (leaving out a brief foray in my youth...) But I can conceive of falling in love with a woman, and then I would want to make love with her - and I don't see that as making me suddenly gay, any more that I can honestly say I am totally heterosexual now.

 

Nor would it make me bi, as I also believe in monogamy, so while that relationship lasted, woman-woman sex would be all I was doing. Then again - I can conceive of years of no interest, while I wasn't in love with anyone, say, or even just didn't feel like it. That wouldn't make me asexual, either.

 

Which is to say that I may be anything at any time (well, to be a gay man would be tough...) NOT that any one sexuality is any better or worse in any way than any other. Just that I hate ALL the labels, and refuse to use one.

 

[Sadako]

I'm sorry, but I did read all it the first time, and I've reread it now, and I'm still really struck by that part.

 

Whether you like labels or not (and I do totally get where you're coming from on that, even though I'm defending/explaining this label) it is polite to respect the labels that people apply to themselves. Bi means only that either men or women do it for you; when people say being in an exclusive relationship with one or the other negates being bi, they're negating my sexual orientation and disrespecting the label that I apply to myself. I've been in a relationship with a man for years, but I'm still bi, because that's just as inherent as being straight or being gay.

 

I do understand the bit about not calling yourself straight just because you're with a man, and not calling yourself gay just because you're with a woman--it's just that the implication that bisexuality would 'go away' if you were with only one or the other, and also the implication that bi people don't do monogamy, are common prejudices, and it kind of hit me hard enough that I didn't put the whole thing together... Sorry about that.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2011 by Sadako