FabSwingers.com > Forums > Fabswingers.com site feedback > More sexual orientation options
More sexual orientation options
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Would it not be possible to add more sexual orientation options. You are very limed to either straight/bi or bi curious. We like many others could class ourselves as "anything goes" were neither bi nor curious yet happy and willing to play with both sexes. A quick Internet search has brought up this could be called "pan sexual" and I'm sure the fourmites will come up with more. Surely it's time for an update Fab?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inzi LTV/TS
over a year ago
The Garden of Eden in Beautiful North Wales |
I like the term Gender Fluid... basically cos it confuses the fuck out of most of the people asking the question.
They normally mutter summat along the lines of... Oh, right and walk off thinking...
What the fucks Gender Fluid? I'll pop into Tesco and ask if they've got some on the way home!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Would it not be possible to add more sexual orientation options. You are very limed to either straight/bi or bi curious. We like many others could class ourselves as "anything goes" were neither bi nor curious yet happy and willing to play with both sexes. A quick Internet search has brought up this could be called "pan sexual" and I'm sure the fourmites will come up with more. Surely it's time for an update Fab? "
Try-sexuals as in you'll try anything sexual lol... modern day spin on old school sin |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I say stick to the true sexualities. Four possibilities: asexual, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual. All based on whether you want sex with people who have the same genitals as you, different genitals to you, neither, or both.
The fashion seems to be for people (mostly essentially bisexual) to invent new pseudo-sexualities to describe their preferences. I mean, "Sapiosexual = only attracted to intelligent people." How pretentious is that?
We all have our preferences. Age. Weight. Height. This is different to core sexuality. A straight man being tricked into gay sex is not the same as a guy attracted to blondes finding out that his partner was wearing a wig, or a guy bedding a 30 year old then discovering she's really 40. And does someone who only goes for tall blondes with big breasts call themselves "tallblondeswithbigbreastssexual?" Of course they don't. That would be ridiculous.
Pansexual is simply a flavour of bisexual. Ultimately, you're happy to have sex with people with penises, but also with people with vaginas. That's not to say that it isn't a useful description. To my mind, a pansexual truly doesn't discriminate, whereas many bisexuals treat male and female partners very differently.
But let's not have this site get bogged down with the trend of presenting preferences as sexualities. Let's not confuse sex (which is about anatomy) with gender (which is about identity and presentation.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *w214Couple
over a year ago
Wirral |
"Would it not be possible to add more sexual orientation options. You are very limed to either straight/bi or bi curious. We like many others could class ourselves as "anything goes" were neither bi nor curious yet happy and willing to play with both sexes. A quick Internet search has brought up this could be called "pan sexual" and I'm sure the fourmites will come up with more. Surely it's time for an update Fab? "
Whatever we end up calling it, it sounds like an excellent way to spend our short time on this earth! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I say stick to the true sexualities. Four possibilities: asexual, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual. All based on whether you want sex with people who have the same genitals as you, different genitals to you, neither, or both.
The fashion seems to be for people (mostly essentially bisexual) to invent new pseudo-sexualities to describe their preferences. I mean, "Sapiosexual = only attracted to intelligent people." How pretentious is that?
We all have our preferences. Age. Weight. Height. This is different to core sexuality. A straight man being tricked into gay sex is not the same as a guy attracted to blondes finding out that his partner was wearing a wig, or a guy bedding a 30 year old then discovering she's really 40. And does someone who only goes for tall blondes with big breasts call themselves "tallblondeswithbigbreastssexual?" Of course they don't. That would be ridiculous.
Pansexual is simply a flavour of bisexual. Ultimately, you're happy to have sex with people with penises, but also with people with vaginas. That's not to say that it isn't a useful description. To my mind, a pansexual truly doesn't discriminate, whereas many bisexuals treat male and female partners very differently.
But let's not have this site get bogged down with the trend of presenting preferences as sexualities. Let's not confuse sex (which is about anatomy) with gender (which is about identity and presentation.)"
.
Fantastically put ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would it not be possible to add more sexual orientation options. You are very limed to either straight/bi or bi curious. We like many others could class ourselves as "anything goes" were neither bi nor curious yet happy and willing to play with both sexes. A quick Internet search has brought up this could be called "pan sexual" and I'm sure the fourmites will come up with more. Surely it's time for an update Fab?
Whatever we end up calling it, it sounds like an excellent way to spend our short time on this earth!"
Brilliant  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
and I thought pansexual was being attracted to satyrs and omnisexual attracted to aliens.
Why not just stop using the options altogether and get back to just being sexual.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"and I thought pansexual was being attracted to satyrs and omnisexual attracted to aliens.
Why not just stop using the options altogether and get back to just being sexual.
"
The trouble is that for anyone who isn't bisexual (i.e. the majority of the population) the wrong genitals are an absolute deal breaker. Go to a typical (non-bi themed) swingers night, and you will not find males playing with other males.
Doing away with the core sexualities, or diluting their meaning by creating hundreds of pseudo sexualities based on how you like your partner's eyebrows to be groomed, dilutes and disrespects the fact that homosexuals and heterosexuals don't want any kind of sexual contact with around 50% of the adult population, based purely on what's in their pants. Shallow? Possibly from a bisexual's perspective, but your sexuality is what it is. If we could change it, most of us would be straight, like society tells us we should be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I say stick to the true sexualities. Four possibilities: asexual, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual. All based on whether you want sex with people who have the same genitals as you, different genitals to you, neither, or both.
The fashion seems to be for people (mostly essentially bisexual) to invent new pseudo-sexualities to describe their preferences. I mean, "Sapiosexual = only attracted to intelligent people." How pretentious is that?
We all have our preferences. Age. Weight. Height. This is different to core sexuality. A straight man being tricked into gay sex is not the same as a guy attracted to blondes finding out that his partner was wearing a wig, or a guy bedding a 30 year old then discovering she's really 40. And does someone who only goes for tall blondes with big breasts call themselves "tallblondeswithbigbreastssexual?" Of course they don't. That would be ridiculous.
Pansexual is simply a flavour of bisexual. Ultimately, you're happy to have sex with people with penises, but also with people with vaginas. That's not to say that it isn't a useful description. To my mind, a pansexual truly doesn't discriminate, whereas many bisexuals treat male and female partners very differently.
But let's not have this site get bogged down with the trend of presenting preferences as sexualities. Let's not confuse sex (which is about anatomy) with gender (which is about identity and presentation.)"
I agree that 'sapiosexual' is silly and a bit pretentious.
But sexuality is a spectrum and those four labels you list contain a huge range of different possibilities.
I myself will play with guys in the context of a MMF threesome, but have almost no interest in guys one on one. Bi curious isn't right for me, as I've had experiences, and bi sexual isn't really right as I fall a long way short of being interested in both genders equally.
A different site has 'hete exible' as an option, which is exactly right for me and a lot of other people, I think. It's descriptive and lets people know a bit more precisely what you offer.
What's wrong with having options like that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Doing away with the core sexualities, or diluting their meaning by creating hundreds of pseudo sexualities based on how you like your partner's eyebrows to be groomed, dilutes and disrespects the fact that homosexuals and heterosexuals don't want any kind of sexual contact with around 50% of the adult population, based purely on what's in their pants."
I'm sorry, this makes no sense at all.
How do terms that allow you to more accurately describe your sexuality disrespect anyone? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"and I thought pansexual was being attracted to satyrs and omnisexual attracted to aliens.
Why not just stop using the options altogether and get back to just being sexual.
The trouble is that for anyone who isn't bisexual (i.e. the majority of the population) the wrong genitals are an absolute deal breaker. Go to a typical (non-bi themed) swingers night, and you will not find males playing with other males.
Doing away with the core sexualities, or diluting their meaning by creating hundreds of pseudo sexualities based on how you like your partner's eyebrows to be groomed, dilutes and disrespects the fact that homosexuals and heterosexuals don't want any kind of sexual contact with around 50% of the adult population, based purely on what's in their pants. Shallow? Possibly from a bisexual's perspective, but your sexuality is what it is. If we could change it, most of us would be straight, like society tells us we should be."
Err yeah but,,,,many women are quite prepared,happy even,for a little girl on girl to please or excite their guy.Maybe not attracted to the same sex under any other circumstances. I'm guessing (and it is only a guess) that very few (otherwise heterosexual) guys are into a bit of man on man to please their ladies.
So,,,,Bi (under certain circumstances) or 'Oh ok,Bi if it will shut him up and stop him going on about it' would seem to be perfectly valid additions to the sexuality roll call. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Doing away with the core sexualities, or diluting their meaning by creating hundreds of pseudo sexualities based on how you like your partner's eyebrows to be groomed, dilutes and disrespects the fact that homosexuals and heterosexuals don't want any kind of sexual contact with around 50% of the adult population, based purely on what's in their pants.
I'm sorry, this makes no sense at all.
How do terms that allow you to more accurately describe your sexuality disrespect anyone? "
It makes perfect sense to anyone who is exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual. It only ever seems to be questioned by those who don't have an exclusive interest one way or the other.
Gay and straight people don't do this. They are gay or straight, and realise that everything else is a preference. Gay has a massive amount of diversity: chubs, bears, twinks, otters. Where are all of the chubsexuals, bearsexuals, twinksexuals and ottersexuals? Where are the tallblondeswithbigbreastssexuals that I mentioned before?
These are just preferences. Actual sexuality is about who you are interested in having sex with, based purely on what primary sexual organs they have in relation to your own. That's what sexuality means. Diluting it by turning it into a mere preference is something that only bisexuals (and occasionally asexuals) seem to do. Probably because they're sick of some of the gays and straights telling them that they don't have standards, and should pick a team. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
My interpretation of pansexual was that you are sexually attracted to the person not the gender. So men, women, TVs, TSs, you can find yourself attracted to any of them.
Bisexuality has a sliding scale, and for many people this is fluid so it's impossible to define sub-categories. I think bi-curious should be when you are open minded to the idea of same gender (or other gender if you are gay) but haven't explored.
The only thing I think fab should add is bi-playful, so one step up from curious, you have tried and enjoyed and would do it again but only in certain circumstances (such as in an MMF or FFM scenario). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think it's the 21st Century and everyone can define what they are and what they want to be whenever they want to be something specific (if that's what they want to do)... it's healthy not to feel boxed in by other people's definitions... especially when those definitions are made by people who have no real experience of being all sexualities. People see things very differently mostly. I'm bi sexually, meaning I love sex with men and women, I've fallen in love with people of both genders and after having experienced being in relationships with both genders, I know I don't want a girlfriend again, but I do want a compatible boyfriend... eventually lol. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think it's the 21st Century and everyone can define what they are and what they want to be whenever they want to be something specific (if that's what they want to do)... it's healthy not to feel boxed in by other people's definitions... especially when those definitions are made by people who have no real experience of being all sexualities. People see things very differently mostly. I'm bi sexually, meaning I love sex with men and women, I've fallen in love with people of both genders and after having experienced being in relationships with both genders, I know I don't want a girlfriend again, but I do want a compatible boyfriend... eventually lol."
The right to self identify is something I'm totally on board with. It's one of the reasons I don't mind contact from 'straight' guys on here. I'm not contradicting someone who says they are pansexual, but I acknowledge it only as a pseudo-sexuality that's actually a preference that expands on sexuality to include attraction and romantic interest. I can't see good reason for distinguishing it from other exclusive preferences, such as a straight male who is only interested in blondes under 30. His sexuality is still just 'straight.'
You can't even get pan people to agree on a definition. Some say it's treating everyone the same. Others seem to consider it gender blindness or acknowledging the existence of intersex (the core four already do: hetero = other, not opposite.) I'm gender blind too but I only like cock. Can I claim to be a homosexual pansexual? Surely it isn't possible to have more than one sexuality at once.
Gender is a massive red herring. It's linked to attraction rather than raw sexual interest. There are plenty of heteroromantic, bi/heteroattracted bisexuals out there. In fact, the majority seem to fall into that category, in my experience. Perhaps this is why pansexuals feel the need to break away and form something that's completely bisexual, biattracted and biromantic.
Using myself as an example:
1) I am homosexual. Got penis. Want penis. Do not want vagina.
2) I am biattracted. I find both men and women attractive. But I only want to take it further with the ones who have penises.
3) I am biromantic. I could become emotionally involved with anyone. I could conceivably love and have a relationship with someone female. We would both need to look elsewhere for sex.
The only one of those relevant to my sexuality is the first one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it's the 21st Century and everyone can define what they are and what they want to be whenever they want to be something specific (if that's what they want to do)... it's healthy not to feel boxed in by other people's definitions... especially when those definitions are made by people who have no real experience of being all sexualities. People see things very differently mostly. I'm bi sexually, meaning I love sex with men and women, I've fallen in love with people of both genders and after having experienced being in relationships with both genders, I know I don't want a girlfriend again, but I do want a compatible boyfriend... eventually lol.
The right to self identify is something I'm totally on board with. It's one of the reasons I don't mind contact from 'straight' guys on here. I'm not contradicting someone who says they are pansexual, but I acknowledge it only as a pseudo-sexuality that's actually a preference that expands on sexuality to include attraction and romantic interest. I can't see good reason for distinguishing it from other exclusive preferences, such as a straight male who is only interested in blondes under 30. His sexuality is still just 'straight.'
You can't even get pan people to agree on a definition. Some say it's treating everyone the same. Others seem to consider it gender blindness or acknowledging the existence of intersex (the core four already do: hetero = other, not opposite.) I'm gender blind too but I only like cock. Can I claim to be a homosexual pansexual? Surely it isn't possible to have more than one sexuality at once.
Gender is a massive red herring. It's linked to attraction rather than raw sexual interest. There are plenty of heteroromantic, bi/heteroattracted bisexuals out there. In fact, the majority seem to fall into that category, in my experience. Perhaps this is why pansexuals feel the need to break away and form something that's completely bisexual, biattracted and biromantic.
Using myself as an example:
1) I am homosexual. Got penis. Want penis. Do not want vagina.
2) I am biattracted. I find both men and women attractive. But I only want to take it further with the ones who have penises.
3) I am biromantic. I could become emotionally involved with anyone. I could conceivably love and have a relationship with someone female. We would both need to look elsewhere for sex.
The only one of those relevant to my sexuality is the first one."
Well Nicole some of us humans have layers of understanding... Yours appear to be extensive and very thoughtful... Which would make some people's head hurt just because you have a multi-dimensionally emotionally sensitive perspective imo.
Which brings us back to the fact that despite humans having similar biometrics... our consciousness is at varying levels and we all do not compute reality in the same way... Hence the huge misunderstandings, cultural differences and disparity in needs... society would have us all believe we can be lumped into categories but the reality of each human is wildly more complex when compared to each other... Especially so when people extract themselves from the generic brainwashing we're all subjected to be human "civilisation" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
