discussion Are gay, bi, straight, asex and les the only acceptable sexual orientations?

[JohnWayneHolland]

I feel like nowadays there's a bunch of new "sexual orientations" that at the end of the day are the same as the ones listed in the title.

 

Like for example "Demisexual" is supposed to be a sexual orientation in which a person feels sexually attracted to someone only after they've developed a close emotional bond with them, but girl that could literally be classified as gay, straight, bi or whatever, depending on who you're attracted to, i don't think there needs to be a new label for that.

 

"Graysexual" is literally Asexual.

 

"Monosexual" which includes people who experience romantic or sexual attraction to people of one sex or gender, like girl you have to be kidding me, just say your straight or gay, no need to come up with new words.

 

"Sapiosexual": A word used to describe those who experience attraction based on intelligence, rather than sex or gender. That literally sounds like bisexual to me.

 

what do you think guys? are all these labels necessary or are people just trying to find new ways to feel unique and special? 

[Patient Zero]

The last part.

[taipei]

LGBs really gotta leave the Ts…Qs and enbies / others on their own. We gave them everything yet they hate us so much. Why not go fight on your own then? Because as soon as we say that they start crying and saying that we must unite and blah blah blah. I can’t wait for this nightmare to be over

[princedonte]

It makes us look like a joke. Language needs to be set. It can’t change so often you have to teach people new terms and definitions constantly. 

[Guest]

Yes i'd add pansexuality as well

[Power love]

15 minutes ago, JohnWayneHolland said:

people just trying to find new ways to feel unique and special? 

[Patient Zero]

2 minutes ago, DojaCat said:

Yes i'd add pansexuality as well

"The primary sign that you are pansexual is that you find yourself attracted to not just men or women or nonbinary folks, but to people all across the gender spectrum."

 

Yep, sounds like bi-sexuality

 

All these labels are not good and we don't need them. There's basically "straight", the only label that's deemed "normal", and 689302 other labels.

[byzantium]

As a gay man, I do not really care.  However, I think gays have the privilege (at least where I live) that the legitimacy of our sexuality is widely accepted.  
 

I do worry about some of these different labels hurting the movement though.  

[LeMésTragique]

21 minutes ago, JohnWayneHolland said:

are people just trying to find new ways to feel unique and special? 

[Harrier]

As far as I'm concerned it's

Straight

Gay

Bisexual

Asexual

 

There's obviously some fluidity between these categories (I'm somewhere between gay & bi) but overall I feel there's no need for any more words than these

[bliaz]

21 minutes ago, princedonte said:

It makes us look like a joke. Language needs to be set. It can’t change so often you have to teach people new terms and definitions constantly. 

people just trying to find new ways to feel unique and special 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by bliaz

[loveisdead9582]

I kind of feel like asexual is kind of… off in this particular case. Not being sexually attracted to anyone is the antithesis of being LGBT… which is about being attracted (at least partially) to someone of the same sex. 

[Solaria]

I'd add pan in there as well. Some bisexual guys still don't like dating trans men/trans women

[ninasayers]

I mean, just let people identify and express themselves however they feel like; that's not hurting the community in any way lmao. I do agree some labels seem to be kinda unnecessary but it doesn't affect anyone in any way so what's the issue lol.

[skwonderfactory]

32 minutes ago, JohnWayneHolland said:

Like for example "Demisexual" is supposed to be a sexual orientation in which a person feels sexually attracted to someone only after they've developed a close emotional bond with them, but girl that could literally be classified as gay, straight, bi or whatever, depending on who you're attracted to, i don't think there needs to be a new label for that.

 

"Graysexual" is literally Asexual.

 

"Sapiosexual": A word used to describe those who experience attraction based on intelligence, rather than sex or gender. That literally sounds like bisexual to me.

 

what do you think guys? are all these labels necessary or are people just trying to find new ways to feel unique and special? 

As someone who is demisexual, I find your views offensive. Sure, anyone who is demisexual can be attracted to any genders that they are, but demisexuality exists as a label so people who require a strong emotional and mental connection to have a strong sexual attraction to said person—or persons for all my pan people out there—are understood with an established boundary. We’re real, I promise ya.

 

I am neither graysexual nor sapiosexual, but I understand why these labels exist. Some people have sexual attraction only to specific individuals on personal circumstances, hence graysexual, and some are more or less attracted to someone based on their intelligence, hence sapiosexual. I don’t understand how you believe the former sounds like asexuality when that means you do not experience sexual attraction to others period and for the latter, how is attraction based on intelligence exclusive to bisexuality? Humans of any sexuality can be intellectual on any level.

 

 

I agree for the most part on your comment about monosexuality; it seems unnecessary and only adds to confusion of those trying to understand these labels.

[Illuminati]

42 minutes ago, taipei said:

LGBs really gotta leave the Ts…Qs and enbies / others on their own. We gave them everything yet they hate us so much. Why not go fight on your own then? Because as soon as we say that they start crying and saying that we must unite and blah blah blah. I can’t wait for this nightmare to be over

Weirdo take

A lot of LGBT people still struggle with the concept of bisexuality not being a transitional phase and asexuality as a whole so I'm not surprised by some of the replies

Edited August 28, 2022 by Illuminati

[K$Ellie]

basically but take aces out since they're not even oppressed in any way

 

[fridayteenage]

13 minutes ago, skwonderfactory said:

As someone who is demisexual, I find your views offensive. Sure, anyone who is demisexual can be attracted to any genders that they are, but demisexuality exists as a label so people who require a strong emotional and mental connection to have a strong sexual attraction to said person—or persons for all my pan people out there—are understood with an established boundary. We’re real, I promise ya.

 

I am neither graysexual nor sapiosexual, but I understand why these labels exist. Some people have sexual attraction only to specific individuals on personal circumstances, hence graysexual, and some are more or less attracted to someone based on their intelligence, hence sapiosexual. I don’t understand how you believe the former sounds like asexuality when that means you do not experience sexual attraction to others period and for the latter, how is attraction based on intelligence exclusive to bisexuality? Humans of any sexuality can be intellectual on any level.

 

 

I agree for the most part on your comment about monosexuality; it seems unnecessary and only adds to confusion of those trying to understand these labels.

[Aristide]

Unlabeled sexual orientation is also acceptable.

[JohnWayneHolland]

13 minutes ago, skwonderfactory said:

As someone who is demisexual, I find your views offensive. Sure, anyone who is demisexual can be attracted to any genders that they are, but demisexuality exists as a label so people who require a strong emotional and mental connection to have a strong sexual attraction to said person—or persons for all my pan people out there—are understood with an established boundary. We’re real, I promise ya.

 

I am neither graysexual nor sapiosexual, but I understand why these labels exist. Some people have sexual attraction only to specific individuals on personal circumstances, hence graysexual, and some are more or less attracted to someone based on their intelligence, hence sapiosexual. I don’t understand how you believe the former sounds like asexuality when that means you do not experience sexual attraction to others period and for the latter, how is attraction based on intelligence exclusive to bisexuality? Humans of any sexuality can be intellectual on any level.

 

 

I agree for the most part on your comment about monosexuality; it seems unnecessary and only adds to confusion of those trying to understand these labels.

I mean Noah fence, but being attracted to someone you already have a bond with sounds more like a preference than a sexual orientation, like people who prefer to date people who exercise or are musicians or whatever.

 

Graysexual and Sapiosexual again sound like preferences, not sexual orientations, like don't we all only like someone that satisfies our preferences? Ok, you like people that are intelligent regardless of their genre, then you're bisexual, because you like both genres but want your partner to be intelligent.

[Saddy]

1 hour ago, JohnWayneHolland said:

are people just trying to find new ways to feel unique and special?

[Communion]

1 hour ago, taipei said:

LGBs really gotta leave the Ts…Qs and enbies

Reported 

[Johnny Cash]

Can't stand all those terms. The way these people have to come up with these ridiculous words just so they can claim to be oppressed and to be part of the LGBT community as if it's some sort of club  insulting!

[D.Va]

42 minutes ago, skwonderfactory said:

As someone who is demisexual, I find your views offensive. Sure, anyone who is demisexual can be attracted to any genders that they are, but demisexuality exists as a label so people who require a strong emotional and mental connection to have a strong sexual attraction to said person—or persons for all my pan people out there—are understood with an established boundary. We’re real, I promise ya.

 

I am neither graysexual nor sapiosexual, but I understand why these labels exist. Some people have sexual attraction only to specific individuals on personal circumstances, hence graysexual, and some are more or less attracted to someone based on their intelligence, hence sapiosexual. I don’t understand how you believe the former sounds like asexuality when that means you do not experience sexual attraction to others period and for the latter, how is attraction based on intelligence exclusive to bisexuality? Humans of any sexuality can be intellectual on any level.

 

 

I agree for the most part on your comment about monosexuality; it seems unnecessary and only adds to confusion of those trying to understand these labels.

Yeah but all of this goes beyond your sexuality and describes precisely your preferences, which shouldn't be necessary. You're just pansexual (sexuality), but you need to have a strong connexion with a person before engaging in a relationship (preferences). There's no need to mix up sexuality and preferences, because then new terms would be created endlessly, some even contradicting each others, and it would be a mess. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by D.Va

[Mikeymoonshine]

I think we should be generally accepting of people labelling themselves how they want. Usually it's not really an issue to just go along with it and maybe even try to understand. 

 

However sexual orientation means someone's sexual attraction in relation to gender so like what genders you are or aren't attracted to. Demisexual and "sapiosexual" don't describe that so I wouldn't consider them sexual orientation anymore than I'd consider "I'm only into blonde's" a sexual orientation. Demisexual is more about how your attraction works and sapiosexual is if I were to take it seriously a dating preference.