2007:Begining of Anysexual?

[MACgirl]

Hey guys i have been pondering this for a good month now about the blurred lines between gay or straight or even bi. Sure it seems as though one could lable another human a certian thing but is that who they are or simply who they are seen as?. At the start of 2007 i have been noiticing things all around me that pop questions into my head, straight boys with gay boys, lesbians with straight girls and all with each other as well. It's proabably not a new thing and can be refered to as a "swinger" but how far can a swinger go till somone labels them gay, straight or bi?. My friend valerie who is extremely comfterable with discussing her sexual orientation with anyone, told me that she isnt afriad to try new things and she will love who she falls in love with being a man or woman or a transgendered person. This opened up a whole new train of thought,is this new way of love safer than than loving just one sex? and is this newfound love equal to free love as based on the 60s?. I have always thought of myself as straight and no question to it, but latley i feel like an anysexual : a person who loves anyone regardless of sex, anatomy or sexual orientation. I never however had a female on female relationship but i feel more open to it if it were to come my way and if i wasnt in a relationship. I know this is a bit odd but i feel liek 07 is the begining seeing blurred lines between lables and sexes. What are all your thoughts on this?

 

[d_flawless]

interesting you bring this up, my friend and i were just discussing this the other day at work...have u ever seen that one episode of sex and the city where carrie dates the younger guy who has dated guys and girls and she gets taken aback? well that whole situation reminds me sort of our generation now...like the lines are blurred, people are more than ever admitting their curiousity with the other sex, and acting on it. i don't think it's a bad thing, and i don't have a problem with not being so definitive off my own sexuality (either claiming to be gay or straight, you know, in terms of black or white)...for me i understand sexuality in terms of your harmony with another person, just how your auras get along and stuff...

 

[Beauty Mark]

I think you're x if your actions or emotions follow that mode of sexuality.

I think it's hard to define, but I don't think it's impossible. There's bi-curious, which is what I think a lot of people are. I think that a lot of people hesitate to label themselves because it's difficult and it still has a stigma and for some, I think they're afraid of looking close-midned to not declare themselves a little homosexual. I think, though, it's also more prominent because it's easier to be out now than it was years ago. It still isn't easy but compared to the past, it's much easier.

I consider myself polysexual. It's no safer to be able to be attracted to men, women, transgender/sexuals, etc. in that I've had my heartbroken pretty brutally by everyone. And it doesn't make dating easier, because what I'm looking for in a SO is still hard to find.

 

[Raerae]

Sexuality isn't as black and white as some people would have you believe. It has MANY shades of grey.

 

[Eoraptor]

I agree society is becoming more open to a wider range of sexual relationships, and I think it's a good thing. I don't know if more people are bisexual than before, but it'd certainly be interesting if true.

However, I believe this post is based on some fundamental category errors. You can't be a straight girl in a willing sexual relationship with a lesbian, by definition. The moment you do that you're at least bisexual.

And while there is a continuum of sexuality between purely being sexually attracted to men and purely being attracted to women, I don't think the terms anysexual or polysexual are helpful. Remember there are only two sexes of humans*, and bi- is a prefix meaning two. Thus an "anysexual" or "polysexual" person is stuck being bisexual until we create more human sexes.

I agree with Beauty Mark that an important reason for these new terms is that people don't like the connotations of our traditional sexual orientation adjectives. That doesn't make the new terms more useful for communication though. What they may be useful for is politics and society, as framing (putting issues in a way that makes them more acceptable to a certain demographic) is a powerful method of driving change.

* There are intersexuals of course, which show a wide range of variation but are a very low percentage of the population. I don't think most self described polysexuals have them in mind though when they label themselves polysexual though.

 

[medusalox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae Sexuality isn't as black and white as some people would have you believe. It has MANY shades of grey.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Labels are often limiting. Although I call myself straight, I've always said that I might fall in love with anyone, regardless of gender. I would hate to miss out on a possible love of my life soulmate kind of relationship because I was limiting myself. Is this a good way for everyone to be? I'm not sure. It works for me.

I'd like to say that society is much more accepting of things that fall outside of the 'norm' for sexuality, but it's not true. It's much better than it was a decade or two decades ago, but there is still a majority of the population that completely shut off and intolerant of anything other than the supposed norm.

Maybe some people are coming to terms with their own sexuality now. Perhaps the progress in acceptance that we're seeing isn't so much a general acceptance from society as a whole, but rather, an acceptance from individuals towards themselves. I hope.

 

[Raerae]

People are just finally getting over the puritan roots of this country. it's not like being bi, gay, lesbian, whatever, is something new in the 21st century... It's just been frowned upon and vilified by the various major religions in the world, and only now is modern society getting over the stigma left by conservative dogma.

Is it's more acceptable? Really depends on where you are. In some places yes, but in the MAJORITY of places (world wide even) it's not acceptable.

 

[jdepp_84]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae Sexuality isn't as black and white as some people would have you believe. It has MANY shades of grey.

I agree. And sexuality is socially constructed so it will always differ from one generation to another. It's always changing. In my opinion, a person's sexuallity is a mixture of biology as well as society.

 

[medusalox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae People are just finally getting over the puritan roots of this country. it's not like being bi, gay, lesbian, whatever, is something new in the 21st century... It's just been frowned upon and vilified by the various major religions in the world, and only now is modern society getting over the stigma left by conservative dogma. Is it's more acceptable? Really depends on where you are. In some places yes, but in the MAJORITY of places (world wide even) it's not acceptable.

You're singin' my tune! That's what I was trying to say, but you said it much more eloquently.

 

[sharyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by medusalox I'd like to say that society is much more accepting of things that fall outside of the 'norm' for sexuality, but it's not true. It's much better than it was a decade or two decades ago, but there is still a majority of the population that completely shut off and intolerant of anything other than the supposed norm.

ITA!!
and unfortunately, there's even more people who pretend that they dont have any problem with you having a bi or gay relationship, but somewhere deep in their little minds, they'd still love to burn you on a stake. PC tells them to tolerate and let everyone do his/her thing but secretly, they think you're somewhat abnormal or weird.
I think we still have a long way to go. we're far from seeing sexuality as something personal that doesnt say anything about a persons intelligence/ "worthiness".

and I totaly agree that the majority of places in the world are less tolerant, and I'm not talking about some far away hillbilly in a country no one has ever heard of, but about countries where religion has more power than/is equal to the government.
IMO, (sexual) freedom and religious fanatism or fundamentalism cant go together for lots of religions.(I'm afraid of getting peed on by some die-hard-religion fans so NO, I wasnt talking about your religion. About everybody elses, yes, but no, I did not put the name of your god to shame) but thats another story and I dont want to make this a pro-con religion thread.

 

[Beauty Mark]

Quote:

Remember there are only two sexes of humans*, and bi- is a prefix meaning two. Thus an "anysexual" or "polysexual" person is stuck being bisexual until we create more human sexes.

Actually, there are some people who choose not to define themselves as male or female. Do I understand it? Not really, but I think that's where the idea comes into play of bisexual not being too confining. Also, there are some people who don't believe that transgendered blur the line of taste with bisexuality.

I think that the Kinsey scale did the best job of defining sexuality, hinting grays and the absolutes.

If you're open minded towards being in a relationship with someone of the same sex without having been attracted to someone like, the general term is hetero-flexible.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to put a label on yourself. While I understand why some people are in denial, if you mess around with only your sex, you're at least some level of bi. If you ever read Angels in America, the one guy, Roy Cohen, was adamant about declaring himself straight (he was a prominent conservative figure), even though he was sexually attracted to men and had no desire for women that we saw. As far as I'm concerned, he was gay.

 

[Eoraptor]

Quote:

Actually, there are some people who choose not to define themselves as male or female. Do I understand it? Not really, but I think that's where the idea comes into play of bisexual not being too confining. Also, there are some people who don't believe that transgendered blur the line of taste with bisexuality.

Well, those people who don't want to define themselves as male or female aren't being honest, unless they're intersexuals. This is just considering sex though, not gender. A more accurate classification of who we're attracted to would include gender orientation as well. It shouldn't be seen as a replacement for sexual orientation though, but a separate system for measuring a different variable. Perhaps terms like heterogendered or homogendered would work, though many people would be somewhere in between. For instance, if I recall correctly, Raerae would be strongly heterogendered because she's only sexually attracted to manly men. But if a woman preferred transgendered men, she'd be strongly homogendered.

Quote:

If you're open minded towards being in a relationship with someone of the same sex without having been attracted to someone like, the general term is hetero-flexible.

What do you mean "without having been attracted to someone like"?

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eoraptor For instance, if I recall correctly, Raerae would be strongly heterogendered because she's only sexually attracted to manly men.

Considering i've made out with girl friends at clubs and bars before, I dont think your attempts to label people really works that well

Since you dont know 100% about everyone, and chances are they wont fit your idea anyways. Makeing out is fun ;p Would I want to date any of my girl friends? Probably not. I'm so not attracted to butch women, and the girls that I think are hot, are competition. So i'd be too busy looking for their flaws to think about anything else ;p haha.

And whats a "manly" man. Manly being doesn't look androgenous? Or manly being all mysoginistic, "Machismo" type attitude. Personally i despise the latter. But I'm not going to only date guys who look the the Brawny Paper Towel Guy ;p My preference just tends to lean towards bigger guys who are more masculine, in appearance and attitude. So i tend to end up with that sort of guy. But if my knees went weak to someone who didn't look like that, I'd prolly go for it.

Edit: So even though i've made out with friends, I hardly consider myself bi-sexual, or bi-curious. I'm a strait female who loves boys. And i'm looking forward to typical marriage and a family. Am I as strait as the girl who's grossed out by kissing a girl? No. But I'm not bi-sexual, or a lesbian by any means.

 

[Eoraptor]

Hmm. I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent you (apologies for that). But since your preference "tends to lean towards bigger guys who are more masculine, in appearance and attitude", I don't think I was too far off. Of course you also like femme women, which is an interesting phenomenon. What would we scientists call that? A bimodal distribution.

The issue of making out vs. dating vs. relationships is an interesting one too. I have more to say on it, but I gotta go comfort a friend at the moment. Interesting discussion...

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eoraptor Of course you also like femme women, which is an interesting phenomenon. What would we scientists call that? A bimodal distribution.

I didn't say i liked them ;p Calling a woman, "hot" for me doesn't mean I want to sleep with her. As I said, the first thing on my mind when I see a hot girl isn't attraction.

You analyze stuff to much.

 

[Beauty Mark]

Quote:

What do you mean "without having been attracted to someone like"?

Someone similar. I was typing quickly, sorry. What I meant was that some of my friends describe themselves as heteroflexible in that they have never had a crush on someone of the same sex as they are, but it doesn't mean that they're opposed to it or opposed to pursuing it, should they find themselves attracted. It's sort of a theoretical take on sexuality, I guess.

I think in Raerae's case, not knowing the details of what happened, I wouldn't call it bi anything. More like experimental or harmless fun. However, I think there are so many people who are in denial of what they really are. For instance, I knew some lesbians who secretly crush and fool around with males, but they wouldn't consider themselves bi. They might not be a true 50-50 split, but I'd say the fact that they wanted to pursue relationships with these men that they weren't 100% lesbian. Maybe a 6 or lower on the Kinsey scale.

 

[metalkitty]

Hmmm, I don't mean to get a bit off topic, but I was wondering if there's a word for my orientation. I guess the easiest way to explain it would be calling it 'fluid', it's like being straight, bisexual, gay, pansexual, and asexual at different times... I'm not confused at all, I believe in love and connections more than anything else, so gender doesn't matter too much to me. I was just wondering if there's actually a definition for this, although I personally think labeling one's sexuality is kinda lame since there's so many grey areas as mentioned above. It's like everyone has to fit into their little boxes to feel comfortable, no offense to anyone. That could be taken in a negative way.

 

[Shimmer]

Generally, a straight girl who makes out with another straight girl in a bar/club/in front of boys is known as an "attention whore".


Gender, barring intersexed people, is usually not fluid, genetically speaking. The normal person (one with out any genetic complications) is either male, or female.

Sexuality, on the other hand, is quite fluid.

 

[aquarius11]

Generally, a straight girl who makes out with another straight girl in a bar/club/in front of boys is known as an "attention whore".


This made me chuckle!

I see your point, though.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Generally, a straight girl who makes out with another straight girl in a bar/club/in front of boys is known as an "attention whore".

Shim

Wanna make out?