Alzar wrote: bisexual as "two or more genders"
What if sex is irrelevant to these people?
I don't strictly accept that sexual orientation is only meant to predict the sex of your partner with X% accuracy and Y% margin of error- which would basically be the end result, I find, if we suggest the "to who you can get attracted to" assertion. If you change your viewpoint to the "how you get attracted", on the other hand, this may be far more relevant in the topic of dating someone you may or may not wind up having feelings for.
> 1. They do not care if their partner is of the same or opposite sex AND also do not care if the person is genderqueer, agendered, or otherwise
2. In the case of demisexuals, they may generally find themselves with little to NO attraction to sex/gender... in the absence of any connection to people
To be a bit less politically correct, from I've come to understand in discussions, A Bisexual is someone who enjoys high sexual activity but does find themselves with varying degrees of attraction to both core sexes. The attraction could be equal, it may also swing one way more than the other due to a stronger preference to one of the two core sexes.
So, just to top this off, if you really want to limit your viewpoint to the sex/gender of someone's potential partners, then sure- typically anyone who identifies strictly heterosexual only would not be married to the same sex, and anyone who identifies strictly homosexual only would not be married to the opposite sex.
Alzar wrote:More confusing is biweekly. Does it mean twice every week, or once every two weeks?
Alzar wrote:is that you
MashFlob wrote:sex as in the physical activty? that's not related to your sexual orientation.
If you mean sex as in the gender: then he is bi-sexual.
If you change the definition of sexual orientation to subjective preferences of characteristics then you just move away from biology and science.
no idea where to put the agender but how does bi-sexuality exclude you from liking genderqueer people? After all there are two genders,
but technically it covers the exact same as bisexual so I'm not sure where the need for that word is. I think it does more harm than good,
The fact that you are trying to tell them what is going on with them when they feel you are missing how they feel is offensive to them, and most importantly, is not what this thread is for.
If you change the definition of sexual orientation to subjective preferences of characteristics-
Rickdaily12 wrote:I wonder why it seemed hard before to grasp that a male wouldn't be against sleeping with both sexes?
Rickdaily12 wrote:So it's hard to distinguish. =/
alouvre wrote:Rickdaily12 wrote:I wonder why it seemed hard before to grasp that a male wouldn't be against sleeping with both sexes?
Not sure where you are, but all the guys here are painfully insecure. They think liking another man is going to hurt their masculinity, whatever that means.
The problem is that you're trying to oversimplify. You are trying to put everyone into three boxes, and a lot of the people you're trying to generalize are correctly asserting that the umbrella-term you're applying does not apply to them. The fact that you are trying to tell them what is going on with them when they feel you are missing how they feel is offensive to them, and most importantly, is not what this thread is for.
It has everything to do with them. It has nothing to do with objective observations. It IS subjective, it IS heavily based on how the person feels within themselves. So no, trying to apply biology and science to how one feels about themselves, especially here, is likely to step on toes.
That is exactly what people do here. That is exactly how people communicate here.
What more boxes are there? There are two genders, so necessarily there can't be more than 3 combinations. In no way I am telling people how to feel or not, but there is no point in drawing lines between unrelated stuff. such as sexual drive and sexual orientation. That is just confusing.
Alright, then if this has nothing to do with biology and science, then why use scientific terms that are already well defined?
I wasn't clear there, my bad. Sexual orientation is the subjective preference of sexual characteristics, and not character traits, off which you are talking. Those are the base for an emotional bond.
To them, there is every point to diversify, there is every point to be inclusive, and do away with labels and restrictions. If you don't get why, that's fine, and you can ask for details- but be aware that these are the attitudes that you're bringing into a space that they feel they have to be defensive over.
I'm sorry, please don't take this the wrong way- but if you're here in the pursuit of science and discovery, then... when you read the original post of this thread, what on earth gave you the idea that you're in the right place?
Who ever said anything about answering questions according to the basis of the scientific method and with professorial accuracy? That's not what this is. This is a support thread, not a place of research. This is a place where I've already told you that you ask for people's interpretations on things. That screams subjective. I'm going to ask you to reconsider if you're posting in the right place at all, because I think you and I have very different ideas of what a support thread for this community is supposed to look like.
MashFlob wrote:I had some questions and got them answered. After all you need to understand things first before you accept them.Then I saw your post which didn't make much sense so I keep asking. How on earth wouldn't a discussion board be NOT the place to talk about that? I'm not forcing you to reply to me. If you feel offended then I can't help that other than tell you to ignore me.
Return to Off-Topic Discussions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests