LGBTitp - Part Seven

[Kara Kuro]

Also, the whole nine yards, kara? That's downright deformed!

I was thinking about saying "the whole nine inches.." but I wasn't sure whether it'd be appreciated :D

I dunno.. It might just be that I'm a bit miffed about so many people are labeling themselves as "bicurious" or even bisexual just because it seems to be the new, trendy thing to do and attractive to the sex that they're actually seeking out. I couldn't tell you how many times I've had guys (completely heterosexual guys) tell me they're bi or they like to "experiment" after I've explained that I've had girlfriends in the past just as an attempt to get into my pants.

I have plenty of friends who've had the same thing happen to them. Partially why I just don't like to label people/myself. Its harder to be a jerk/poser if you can't just pop out a word over drinks.

[Coidzor]

It depends on the person. If the person in question is okay with that kind of lifestyle and knew the potential consequences, sure I'd recommend it for them. There are promiscuous people of all sexualities and for some of them... it works.

Definitely doesn't work in all scenarios, but I certainly wouldn't say that it should NEVER be offered as an option.

Yes, but you're offering it as an option to someone you don't know jack about. And were presenting it as the first and best choice option in the language the two of you were using.

Also, the whole nine yards, kara? That's downright deformed!

If they're nine yards long, something untoward has happened to that human being. Most likely, involving a semi-truck or lorry...

I dunno.. It might just be that I'm a bit miffed about so many people are labeling themselves as "bicurious" or even bisexual just because it seems to be the new, trendy thing to do and attractive to the sex that they're actually seeking out. I couldn't tell you how many times I've had guys (completely heterosexual guys) tell me they're bi or they like to "experiment" after I've explained that I've had girlfriends in the past just as an attempt to get into my pants.

Well, that's dumb young people for ya. *hitches up old fogie pants and grabs his wagging angrily at whipper-snappers cane*

Also, in this age of sexual semi-liberation, it often times is seen as a challenge if a woman has actually acted on any bisexual tendencies. Why this is, I dunno.

[Kara Kuro]

Yes, but you're offering it as an option to someone you don't know jack about. And were presenting it as the first and best choice option in the language the two of you were using.

I'm assuming all the advice posted here is taken with a few heaping mounds of salt... Especially when people are asking about situations involving third parties we know nothing about.

Not suggesting it as the first and best choice at all, just voicing a possibility that it IS a choice and should potentially be considered given the right person/situation.

[golentan]

I'm kind of iffy on the whole labels thing myself. I've been accused of "posing" myself, though, and that's all kinds of irritating. A lot of the time people will see the behavior that's most directed at them: My male friends have told me that I should "admit to being gay" because I flirt with them far more than they've seen me flirt with any woman. Whereas women have claimed that I'm straight because I honestly tend to prefer women overall. I, personally, have everyone ranked on a single ladder and simply go for (from my perspective) friendly smart hotties regardless of labeling.

...

Yay Sample Bias!!!

[Kara Kuro]

I, personally, have everyone ranked on a single ladder and simply go for (from my perspective) friendly smart hotties regardless of labeling.

This is me as well. I wouldn't really describe myself as bisexual but as... an equal opportunity dater? Or maybe the term should be non-gender bias. I don't know.

I just don't see gender as part of the 'is this person datable' equation. There are more important things with which to concern myself.

[Coidzor]

This is me as well. I wouldn't really describe myself as bisexual but as... an equal opportunity dater? Or maybe the term should be non-gender bias. I don't know.

I just don't see gender as part of the 'is this person datable' equation. There are more important things with which to concern myself.

Nothing about bisexual precludes this sort of mental framework.

[Kara Kuro]

Nothing about bisexual precludes this sort of mental framework.

I know that. I'm just silly in my label-hate. And I do like to feel a bit pretentious sometimes XD

[Vero]

I know that. I'm just silly in my label-hate. And I do like to feel a bit pretentious sometimes XD

I went for the tag "personalitysexual" a while ago. Basically, if I *like* someone, I can find them sexy regardless of the body they are actually in, whereas I have never even had a celebrity crush, or found someone I didn't already enjoy being with as a friend anyway attractive in a "wanting to go to bed with" sense. I can look at people and see them as pretty/handsome/nice figure etc, but... not sexy. Sexy for me comes when I know them, and then I really don't care what they look like or what bits they have.

Plus it avoids all this angsting over "am I more bisexual or more gay or more straight because I've had more partners from whatever gender" stuff. If I like someone, I tend to be able to think they are hot.

The downside: I find a lot of my close friends hot, and I sound pretentious as heck when I explain why I chose to identify that way.

[Serpentine]

Especially as it implies that hetero/homosexuals don't choose their partners based on personality...

[Vero]

Especially as it implies that hetero/homosexuals don't choose their partners based on personality...

That wasn't meant to be the implication, just that my "limiting factor" is personality in the very first instance.

There's a difference between choosing a partner and finding someone physically attractive.

I know lots of people of all orientations who find people physically attractive but who don't like the person, enjoy spending time with them or think they are basically a nice person, or even - in the case of celebrities, for example - KNOW them. They simply react on a physical level for whatever reason, and they define the subset of people who can initiate that reaction however they like - perhaps by gender, perhaps not. I know one person who describes himself, jokingly, as redheadedsexual, which might be taking it to extremes.

I would hope that when it comes to choosing a partner we all select based on personality within whatever subset of people we are able to find physically attractive. It's just that for me, that subset is already defined once by personality already. I still wouldn't choose to date a lot of the friends I have, though, because I don't think we would make good partners - but I can sure as hell respond to them physically.

[Jacklu]

Of course, there are those that also choose their partners before knowing the person in question. Though that is usually called stalking....



Anyways, You people are all weird. I'm weird as hell myself, so we're all in good company. =P ^_^

[Murdim]

brainy-stuff about silly little made-up words makes murdim's head hurt

I completely dropped the idea of using labels to describe my sexuality, and that of others, as a whole. This way lies madness.

Sexual orientation labels (or perhaps more accurately, families of labels - heterosexual/straight, homosexual/gay/lesbian, bisexual/pansexual/ambisexual/pomosexual/switch-hitter/whatever, asexual/nonsexual, demisexual, heteroflexible...) are fine, they mostly work, despite all their inherent fuzziness and subjectivity. That's because those terms only aims to describe a single, superficial, extremely narrow facet of human sexuality.

Ideally, when someone tells you they're straight, or gay, they aren't telling you anything else about their sexuality than the gender of the people they find themselves (sexually) attracted to. They don't give any information about their sex drive, their preferred sexual practices, their sexual habits, or even the gender of the people they want to have sex with (see : Straight Men who have Sex with Men) ; nor does it say much about what exactly they're attracted to in the persons they find attractive.

I mean, let's see it the other way : what would you say to a guy who is exclusively attracted to women, but refuses to be called "straight" or "heterosexual" because he supposedly doesn't fit into those labels... using such arguments as "I'm not attracted to every woman", "my relationships with women aren't always of sexual nature", or "I'm not consciously rejecting males as sexual partners, it's just that I'm not sexually attracted to them" ?

It's the same thing with bisexuality, pansexuality, or however you call it, really. Those terms aren't meant to describe your entire sexual outlook.

[Drolyt]

I still maintain that any labels, even ones like homo vs hetero, are inherently damaging. As for Vero's personality thing, I think most people need someone to have a good personality to love them, but for attraction? Really, I can only speak for myself, and I am hetero, but attraction for me is almost purely based on looks. I could easily shag someone I didn't even like if they were hot and good in bed and I doubt I could maintain a relationship with someone I didn't think was hot. I've also had crushes on a couple celebrities. To be fair sex/romance is the only thing I discriminate on based on looks (or gender), but there you go.

[Murdim]

I, personally, have everyone ranked on a single ladder and simply go for (from my perspective) friendly smart hotties regardless of labeling.

I wonder why so many people fail to understand such a simple thing, and believe instead that heterosexual and homosexual desires are always dissociated and conflicting in all bisexuals.

Anyways, You people are all weird. I'm weird as hell myself, so we're all in good company. =P ^_^

We are here. We are weird. Get used to it.

I still maintain that any labels, even ones like homo vs hetero, are inherently damaging.

... yeah. Yeah, you're right. But I still think that sexual orientation labels are a lesser evil - perhaps even a necessary one.

[Coidzor]

I wonder why so many people fail to understand such a simple thing, and believe instead that heterosexual and homosexual desires are always dissociated and conflicting in all bisexuals.

Now that's just them either being silly humans or else they're so the way they are that they can't grasp forms of desire that aren't ones they experienc

Ideally, when someone tells you they're straight, or gay, they aren't telling you anything else about their sexuality than the gender of the people they find themselves (sexually) attracted to. They don't give any information about their sex drive, their preferred sexual practices, their sexual habits, or even the gender of the people they want to have sex with (see : Straight Men who have Sex with Men) ; nor does it say much about what exactly they're attracted to in the persons they find attractive.

Who wants to know all of that up front in a simple term? Who wants to be told that information directly in casual human contact? Hell, most potential lovers would generally prefer to find out in a non-info dump manner.

Also, what happens in prison is generally best not thought about for one's own sake.

I mean, let's see it the other way : what would you say to a guy who is exclusively attracted to women, but refuses to be called "straight" or "heterosexual" because he supposedly doesn't fit into those labels... using such arguments as "I'm not attracted to every woman", "my relationships with women aren't always of sexual nature", or "I'm not consciously rejecting males as sexual partners, it's just that I'm not sexually attracted to them" ?

An idiot who cares more about semantics than politeness? Someone who misunderstands what he's talking about but wants to appear more moral than others? Silly, in a word. Overly sensitive in two.
Edit:

I'd call the dude a pretentious tool, personally, but each to his own.

Yeah, that works better than what I put, I'll just go with that one.

[Lyesmith]

Personality and physical factors are both pretty important. I mean, my taste runs for slightly stockier guys with a dint for the nerdy and probably some facial hair. That hardly means I'm limiting myself to those facotrs completely, but some things just ping up as more attractive.

I'd call the dude a pretentious tool, personally, but each to his own.

[Danne]

He just suddenly sprang it upon me in a Facebook chat.

Then you should clarify before recommending a course of action.

Yes, because jumping into bed without anything beforehand is so much better than jumping straight into a relationship.

Have you not heard of like, going out on a date or something?

I never said I approved of one-night stands. I think they're distastful and completely lacking in class, not to mention a good way to get sick (or murdered, for that matter). I was trying to answer the question that was asked. If is friend was the type for one night stands, then there's no reason why he shouldn't have one that's same-sex if he wants to experiment. The other person wouldn't be expecting any kind of attachment, so it's not like he'd be hurt if the friend decided he was straight after all.

Personally, I would want the person to figure things out without jumping to sex. But it's not my life. If he's only interested in finding out if gay sex interests him, then it's better he does it so that his partner isn't hurt. Since I don't know anything about the person in question, I like to look at things from both angles.

an equal opportunity dater

I like this term. Do you mind if I steal it?

[Kara Kuro]

I like this term. Do you mind if I steal it?

Not at all. Glad that someone else found it useful.

[Vero]

I still maintain that any labels, even ones like homo vs hetero, are inherently damaging. As for Vero's personality thing, I think most people need someone to have a good personality to love them, but for attraction? Really, I can only speak for myself, and I am hetero, but attraction for me is almost purely based on looks. I could easily shag someone I didn't even like if they were hot and good in bed and I doubt I could maintain a relationship with someone I didn't think was hot. I've also had crushes on a couple celebrities. To be fair sex/romance is the only thing I discriminate on based on looks (or gender), but there you go.

And that's my point I was trying to make, I guess Thank you for getting it!

I really couldn't do that. I just seem to be missing the gene or brain chemistry or whatever that makes me look at someone and think "yes, I would like to rub my naked body all over theirs". I can look at someone and want to photograph them or paint them because I think they are beautiful in that sense, but even when it comes to actually bumping uglies, I don't get visually stimulated at all as far as I can tell. Touch, taste smell and sound all work, though, once I'm at that stage ;)

I've never been able to understand the celebrity crush thing, and so many of my friends don't believe me when I say that. I couldn't name a celebrity I found attractive, I've never had an "instant physical connection" with someone and I can't imagine wanting to sleep with someone I didn't like.

I'm not against one night stands, I've had them with friends, but I can't imagine having one with someone I only just met. I don't disapprove of people who do, because I figure if you find someone attractive, go for it - I just don't find people I don't know attractive in the first place.

And that's why for me the defining subset of people from which I might find someone attractive isn't based around gender or sexuality or appearance, but personality - I just lack any other way to describe it. I could say I was bisexual or pansexual because I don't mind about gender, but since I can refine it down more, why shouldn't I?

It was adopted as a term in a slightly ironical sense, I am aware how silly it sounds - but isn't that part of the point? All these labels are stupid, because no two people are exactly the same even if we use the same lable.

All terms are really stupid at heart, just like "redheadedsexual" was, because we don't actually find the entire subset we define by attractive.

We find "specific people A, B and D, F, T and R" attractive.

People A/B/D/F/T/R will all come into one (or maybe more) categorisable subset and we pick one of those subsets as a tag to describe our sexuality (mostly "girls" or "boys" and thus homo or hetero). But that subset doesn't define who we will find attractive, it defines who we won't : people outside that subset.

And thus "member of my circle of friends" is as valid a subset as a gender-based one, or one based on hair colour or physical disability or anything else.


So of course the question is, why do we bother with the labels at all? Do they have a function?

Well, as long as people recognise them for what they really are then yes. They are a way for us to find people similar to ourselves (nb not the same, just like) and they are a way to let people know if they have a chance/no chance with us, perhaps.

[Pyrian]

But that subset doesn't define who we will find attractive, it defines who we won't : people outside that subset.

Right. That's still a lot of useful information in a very small package.

Well, as long as people recognise them for what they really are then yes. They are a way for us to find people similar to ourselves (nb not the same, just like) and they are a way to let people know if they have a chance/no chance with us, perhaps.

I would like to say that I think Golentan's experience is perhaps a bit out of the norm. Or, at least, I think the vast majority of the population understands perfectly well that when somebody says (in whatever way) that they're attracted to X, they don't mean all X, but rather that the subset of people they're attracted to is mostly (or entirely) X.

[bluewind95]

Golentan's story reminds me of the OotS strip where Tsukiko tells Xykon just how much she likes the undead...

Perhaps it went something like this?

"What a good-looking man! He's probably straight, though... they all are.

"Wait. He's bi? Sweet! I stand a chance!"

"Huh. Wait a second. He let ME know. ME. Wow, that's some confidence, there. He must like me! That must be the reason! "

"Now, how can I make it seem like I took the hint, but not all obvious either? You know... flirting back the same way...?"

"Oh, I know! I'll just say he's got to like me now. I mean, he likes guys, he let me know. That means he must like me too, right? "

[742]

or try the inverse of the "comparing yourself to someone really attractive"-setting the person up with someone horrible, if you can find an idiot of the same sex as you with an abysmal personality and hideous body, set them up on a blind date and act baffled when they dont hit it off. if they do, then your problem is still solved. if they dont get the "i think your like this" message youve still sent the "i am not interested, try this instead" message.

i know nothing a successful romance, but if you need help avoiding it i may be the best on the entire planet.

[Faulty]

You could define your sexuality as Soverign. You like whomever you like.

[Lyesmith]

Surely if you find both women and men attractive, it's bisexuality? Regardless of if you just go for the personality, going for the personalities of both makes you bi by definition, no?

[Lyesmith]

Is it bad I thought of the ship out of Mass Effect? 'S what I get for too much TVTropes, I guess.SEXY SPACESHIPS

[Coidzor]

Is it bad I thought of the ship out of Mass Effect? 'S what I get for too much TVTropes, I guess.SEXY SPACESHIPS

Yeah, though if it's an actual metaphor, stockholm-syndrome assisted seduction is probably frowned upon by polite society.

[Lyesmith]

Yeah, though if it's an actual metaphor, stockholm-syndrome assisted seduction is probably frowned upon by polite society.

Those fools! I'll show them! I'LL SHOW THEM ALL!

[Pyrian]

You could define your sexuality as Soverign. You like whomever you like.

I like it!

...So you sound like a person with that particular brand of insanity that thinks they're royalty when they're not in addition to being pretentious?

Um, Coidzor? I think it was just a joke, but even if it wasn't, that was awfully harsh.

[Coidzor]

Um, Coidzor? I think it was just a joke, but even if it wasn't, that was awfully harsh.

Hmm. Maybe. The steampunk thread does seem to have been giving me flashbacks.

V: Flashbacks.

[Lyesmith]

Hmm. Maybe. The steampunk thread does seem to have been giving me flashbacks.

Flashbacks?