Sexual orientation and identification

[Alg]

It's far more nuanced than that

[muggiwhplar]

It's far more nuanced than that

 

You're gonna have to elaborate on that then

[Hedgehog]

Most aspects of our identity are defined by others regardless of what we believe. Such as the guy who can't kill jad but believes hes a pvm expert. He can believe that until the end of time but if no one else agrees with him then hes not a pvm expert. 

 

You can also have someone like Woox who may consider themselves a pvm noob but everyone else believes hes an expert and practically speaking that makes him an expert.

Fun fact I failed to kill jad like 30 times

[obfuscator]

It's far more nuanced than that

For sure, but I wonder why some levels of details are considered necessary where others aren't. I mean, I like brunettes more than blondes, but I don't need a word to describe that.

[Major Dash]

I dont think people like being defined by others, especially when it comes to sexuality. And I doubt they like being told what they're not. Sexuality isn't an objective matter, so the rules of objectivity dont really apply. You cant tell someone they arent bisexual just because they've only dated one gender

 

 

Maybe you can't say that they aren't bi-sexual, but you can call them hetero-sexual. At the moment they start having same sex relations, desires to have same sex relations (fantasizing, masturbating to porn, etc) you can start to classify them as bi-sexual.

 

 

I don't get why people make this more complicated than it is.

[Alg]

(perhaps this could do with its own thread?)

 

 

It's far more nuanced than that

 

 

You're gonna have to elaborate on that then

I did mention that it's all on a spectrum, yes? It's this huge, broad (even a little bit fluid) thing and there's a lot of territory where just the big four labels would paint a picture so incomplete that it may as well not be a label at all (see: asexuality's enormous gray area). And even that falls apart with trans*/nonbinary people. Where would you place someone who's exclusively into females but identifies and presents as neither gender?

 

Also, romantic orientation. There are asexual people who are still very much interested in being in a romantic relationship, which might or might not include sex. Close friend was dating a girl a while back, both are asexual and they were that kind of sickeningly sweet couple. Or someone who calls herself a lesbian because, while she's sexually attracted to males and females, she only has any interest in being in a relationship with females.

[Major Dash]

Couple #1 - That's what I would call platonic friendship.

Person #2 - Lesbian.

[muggiwhplar]

I did mention that it's all on a spectrum, yes? It's this huge, broad (even a little bit fluid) thing and there's a lot of territory where just the big four labels would paint a picture so incomplete that it may as well not be a label at all (see: asexuality's enormous gray area). And even that falls apart with trans*/nonbinary people. Where would you place someone who's exclusively into females but identifies and presents as neither gender?

You'd either be straight or a lesbian depending on your gender. I don't see how someone can have no gender yet be attracted to a specific gender. What do they think about when they masturbate? How do they have sex? That'll give you your answer. If they do neither, then they're asexual.

 

Also, romantic orientation. There are asexual people who are still very much interested in being in a romantic relationship, which might or might not include sex. Close friend was dating a girl a while back, both are asexual and they were that kind of sickeningly sweet couple. Or someone who calls herself a lesbian because, while she's sexually attracted to males and females, she only has any interest in being in a relationship with females.

 

If she's sexually attracted to males and females, she can call herself a lesbian all she wants but she's still bisexual. Like I said before, though, if she's never actually had sex with a guy, never plans to have sex with a guy, and doesn't even masturbate to guys, then yeah she's a lesbian... and she also cannot claim to be sexually attracted to males.

[Major Dash]

 

If she's sexually attracted to males and females, she can call herself a lesbian all she wants but she's still bisexual. Like I said before, though, if she's never actually had sex with a guy, never plans to have sex with a guy, and doesn't even masturbate to guys, then yeah she's a lesbian... and she also cannot claim to be sexually attracted to males.

 

 

This. I really don't know how you could say that you are attracted to guy and then say that you'd never want to be in a relationship with one. I mean, if she wanted to be in a relationship with a man but just isn't, that's one thing.

 

 

It would be like calling 40 year old man who is attracted to 12 year old girls a pedophile* when he has no intention to ever have sex with a 12 year old or watch child porn.

 

*(or whatever the super special snowflake term for this sexual orientation is)

[muggiwhplar]

This discussion reminds me of...

 

[hide=NSFW Language]

[/hide]

 

Skip to 0:50 :lol:

[muggiwhplar]

It would be like calling 40 year old man who is attracted to 12 year old girls a pedophile* when he has no intention or desire to ever have sex with a 12 year old or watch child porn.

 

*(or whatever the super special snowflake term for this sexual orientation is)

That doesn't really make sense though. If someone's "attracted to 12 year old girls" then by definition they desire 12 year olds... which consequently makes them a pedophile :P If they have no intention or desire to ever have sex with a 12 year old or watch child porn, then they're not a pedophile.

 

Like I said earlier, though, being a pedophile would just be a subcategory of one of the 4 primary orientations.

[Major Dash]

Oh rip. I forgot to remove that "or desire" when I rewrote that sentence. =/

[Saradomin_Mage]

 

 

Human sexuality obviously categorized too broadly if people are going through so much trouble to find and create labels that they feel better describe them. Although compared to well planned and organized categories such as species categorization I do think that there will be a lot of clean up work by sexologists over time to come up with organized and descriptive catagories for people.

My main gripe is probably this, that it seems like random groups on tumblr etc are coming up with different sexualities to appear to be special snowflakes, as opposed to academics drawing out well categorised sets that are more useful for classification.

 

People are trying to come up with words to describe themselves, not words to give them special snowflake status or w/e bullshit you think it is. Also, those "special snowflake" orientations exist more as things to say to others who are also part of the ace community and therefore understand the experiences.

 

They may not be useful classification for you, but it's very valuable to me to know if someone is quoiromantic/WTFromantic because I immediately have a very deep understanding of how they work with their closest relationships. And it's valuable to the people that identify that way because just knowing that other people feel that way helps validate your feelings, even when society at large likes to invalidate them.

 

Nerd is also not a "scientific" classification, but that never stopped people from creating it, or from finding value in identifying as one. There's no academic definition of the fine line between nerd and geek and jock and hipster and whatever the [bleep] else, but you wouldn't tell someone off for being one of those. Or maybe you would, idk, but 1 that would make you an [wagon] and 2 who the [bleep] cares about your opinion anyway.

 

Academic discussion doesn't make things real anyway. Things are real, and then people study it. Not the other way around.

 

But is there a need to come up with terms like quoiromantic/sapiosexual/fraysexual/lithosexual/placiosexual to define your sexuality? Is such a level of detail necessary? These come across as merely preferences (e.g. y guy's brunettes vs blondes) rather than a sexual orientation.

[muggiwhplar]

I'm a boobiesexual cuz I LOVE BOOBIES

[Tesset]

 

 

 

Human sexuality obviously categorized too broadly if people are going through so much trouble to find and create labels that they feel better describe them. Although compared to well planned and organized categories such as species categorization I do think that there will be a lot of clean up work by sexologists over time to come up with organized and descriptive catagories for people.

My main gripe is probably this, that it seems like random groups on tumblr etc are coming up with different sexualities to appear to be special snowflakes, as opposed to academics drawing out well categorised sets that are more useful for classification.

 

People are trying to come up with words to describe themselves, not words to give them special snowflake status or w/e bullshit you think it is. Also, those "special snowflake" orientations exist more as things to say to others who are also part of the ace community and therefore understand the experiences.

 

They may not be useful classification for you, but it's very valuable to me to know if someone is quoiromantic/WTFromantic because I immediately have a very deep understanding of how they work with their closest relationships. And it's valuable to the people that identify that way because just knowing that other people feel that way helps validate your feelings, even when society at large likes to invalidate them.

 

Nerd is also not a "scientific" classification, but that never stopped people from creating it, or from finding value in identifying as one. There's no academic definition of the fine line between nerd and geek and jock and hipster and whatever the [bleep] else, but you wouldn't tell someone off for being one of those. Or maybe you would, idk, but 1 that would make you an [wagon] and 2 who the [bleep] cares about your opinion anyway.

 

Academic discussion doesn't make things real anyway. Things are real, and then people study it. Not the other way around.

 

But is there a need to come up with terms like quoiromantic/sapiosexual/fraysexual/lithosexual/placiosexual to define your sexuality? Is such a level of detail necessary? These come across as merely preferences (e.g. y guy's brunettes vs blondes) rather than a sexual orientation.

 

Yes.

[muggiwhplar]

I have a feeling it's less about having a practical/accurate self-description and more of a way for people who feel like outcasts to find solidarity with one another >_>

 

It's like if you search Google for forums dedicated to MBTI and horoscope types. These people relate to these types and consequently define themselves by it... for better or for worse. While it's fun to read about my "rare" INFJ personality type, it's kind of silly when people go on to rant about how the world is so harsh to introverts and how misunderstood they constantly feel and use that as an excuse to be unhappy lol

 

But there really isn't much you can infer from someone's MBTI or sexual orientation or any other obscure personality quirk that you couldn't infer from simply getting to know them.

[muggiwhplar]

 

 

 

Human sexuality obviously categorized too broadly if people are going through so much trouble to find and create labels that they feel better describe them. Although compared to well planned and organized categories such as species categorization I do think that there will be a lot of clean up work by sexologists over time to come up with organized and descriptive catagories for people.

My main gripe is probably this, that it seems like random groups on tumblr etc are coming up with different sexualities to appear to be special snowflakes, as opposed to academics drawing out well categorised sets that are more useful for classification.

 

People are trying to come up with words to describe themselves, not words to give them special snowflake status or w/e bullshit you think it is. Also, those "special snowflake" orientations exist more as things to say to others who are also part of the ace community and therefore understand the experiences.

 

They may not be useful classification for you, but it's very valuable to me to know if someone is quoiromantic/WTFromantic because I immediately have a very deep understanding of how they work with their closest relationships. And it's valuable to the people that identify that way because just knowing that other people feel that way helps validate your feelings, even when society at large likes to invalidate them.

 

Nerd is also not a "scientific" classification, but that never stopped people from creating it, or from finding value in identifying as one. There's no academic definition of the fine line between nerd and geek and jock and hipster and whatever the [bleep] else, but you wouldn't tell someone off for being one of those. Or maybe you would, idk, but 1 that would make you an [wagon] and 2 who the [bleep] cares about your opinion anyway.

 

Academic discussion doesn't make things real anyway. Things are real, and then people study it. Not the other way around.

 

But is there a need to come up with terms like quoiromantic/sapiosexual/fraysexual/lithosexual/placiosexual to define your sexuality? Is such a level of detail necessary? These come across as merely preferences (e.g. y guy's brunettes vs blondes) rather than a sexual orientation.

 

 

I feel like any guy who wants to have sex but is too afraid to make a move or take risks can just call himself a lithosexual as a defense mechanism >_> I mean shit, if a term like that suddenly becomes mainstream I can guarantee there will be a ton of sexually frustrated virgins out there who remain sexually frustrated virgins because it's easier to just say, "oh I'm not getting laid because I'm a lithosexual" rather than saying, "oh I'm not getting laid because sex is outside of my comfort zone"

[obfuscator]

I have a feeling it's less about having a practical/accurate self-description and more of a way for people who feel like outcasts to find solidarity with one another >_>

 

It's like if you search Google for forums dedicated to MBTI and horoscope types. These people relate to these types and consequently define themselves by it... for better or for worse. While it's fun to read about my "rare" INFJ personality type, it's kind of silly when people go on to rant about how the world is so harsh to introverts and how misunderstood they constantly feel and use that as an excuse to be unhappy lol

 

But there really isn't much you can infer from someone's MBTI or sexual orientation or any other obscure personality quirk that you couldn't infer from simply getting to know them.

Yeah, I agree with this. I think this labeling mania betrays a kind of insecurity about one's preferences. I don't give two shits if there's a word for me liking women or not - I don't care whether society approves of it or not, it's what I'm going to do.

 

EDIT: Same thing with marriage as well. Outside of any potential tax benefits, I don't care at all whether the government gives me a piece of paper saying they condone my future marriage.

[Alg]

I have a feeling it's less about having a practical/accurate self-description and more of a way for people who feel like outcasts to find solidarity with one another >_>

 

I'm not really sure why that would be a bad thing, though? Especially if it comes as a consequence of having a very specific and, believe it or not, practical, starting point for that sort of thing. I mean, what with the way people absolutely have been made outcasts because of their orientation. If you like the same sex in any capacity you've got an entire political party saying discrimination against you should be encouraged, if you're asexual then people will flat out deny you exist (for example... by saying their relationships aren't valid, or that they.re virgins that needed an excuse, or that they need to grow up, or so on). And that's just your four mainstream ones, everything else might as well not exist, usually because people hear about it and assume it's made up, instead of digging deeper.

 

Sexuality (or lack thereof) has a big impact on people's lives, after all. Why wouldn't you want to find solidarity in it? The alternative is pretty awful to live through.

[muggiwhplar]

It's only a bad thing if it's making you unhappy or less happy than you would be otherwise. Like with the lithosexual example I gave earlier-- if someone's just using that as an excuse to avoid the discomfort of pursuing sex, then that's bad (I'm thinking of the guys in the relationships thread who've chickened out at a bar and then rationalized it by saying that they're picky; or that they refuse to go on dates because they actually think they'll get accused of rape for creeping a girl out). Or if you're limiting/narrowing your options because of your own self-imposed beliefs about sexuality and consequently you have an unfulfilled sex life, then that's also bad.

[Tesset]

It's extremely easy and inconsequential to say "orientations don't matter" when you're straight.

[RpgGamer]

Its like white privilege, but with sexual orientation.

 

Also, this thread may have derailed super hard but im not mad. This is the most discussion OT has seen in what feels like 10 years (AND LOOK AT THAT WE'RE BACK)

[muggiwhplar]

It's extremely easy and inconsequential to say "orientations don't matter" when you're straight.

You're gonna have to elaborate on that one

[Low Levelled]

Seriously though, ass or jugs?

[muggiwhplar]

Well when 90%+ of the population can relate to you on a subject its easy to disregard the experience of those who fundamentally disagree

 

I think the same thing can be said if you're in the minority. It's very easy for an unhappy person to assume that anyone who's "better off" than them has a 100% worry-free, completely fulfilling and happy life. Except most people are unhappy, even the ones who seem to have it all.

 

For example, you can be unhappily single and wish you were in a relationship like your friends... but you might be so desperate for a relationship that you don't realize that all of your friends' relationships suck. Or you might be unemployed or stuck at a dead-end job, wishing you had a high-paying corporate career like your friends... but you might be so desperate for a "respectable" job that you don't realize that all of your friends feel like prisoners at their soul-sucking 9-5 corporate office job. But the people who are "successful" aren't really allowed to complain about it because in the eyes of the unsuccessful they should be happy and if they complain, then they're just acting like spoiled brats.

 

As far as sexual orientation goes, my friend who recently came out is probably the happiest friend I have as far as his social/dating/sex life goes. He went from sexually confused and frustrated to being able to hook up with as many guys as he wants whenever he wants now, and he's having the time of his life. Compared to my straight friends who are also single but they can't get laid because they lack basic dating skills, they don't understand how women work, and they refuse to put in the work required to master dating. One of my straight friends even told me, "Dude I really just wish I was gay. Dating would be so much easier and straightforward, I just can't stand dealing with women anymore."

 

My point is, the vast majority of people-- including the "privileged" and "normal" ones are usually unhappy because their lives are normal/mediocre/unfulfilling. The only way to be happy, regardless of which group you belong to, is to take full responsibility for your own happiness and work your ass off in order to be happy.