Is it right to label sexuality?

Very good point David. You sound like a manly man :P


Posted from TSR Mobile

Interesting...so how would you feel about previous encounters you'd had with them - say if you'd kissed them before or similar?

I like thought games

I agree. I think it is true that you can one day meet somebody and be attracted to them (note how I said somebody). I am straight but I know that one day I could easily be sexually attracted to someone of my sex. I think from now on, we should just say 'I am attracted to people' rather than saying men or women.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I would feel as though I had been deceived by the person and would find it very difficult to trust that person again, hence why I said I would be open to friendship but in reality I am not sure it would work. I would not doubt my sexuality however but I would be more analytical when choosing my next romantic partner, possibly even bordering on slightly insecure. This would stir up feelings inside of me as to doubt my own judgements and I imagine I would constantly seek approval of their sexuality for the pure and simple reason I would not want to be hurt/deceived or have to endure that much drama and confusion again.

What about people who are sexually attracted to no one?

Your hypothesis is ridiculous and unfounded. You do not need to perceive every possible combination of human genes to know you do not derive sexual attraction from them.

Just a thought I've had for a while:

If somebody says "I'll only date black men," or "I'm only attracted to blonde women with massive breasts," it isn't (generally) acceptable - it's seen as shallow, or even discriminatory, to only be attracted to a certain group of people because of physical qualities. Should it not be the same for saying "I'm only attracted to men/women?"

For example, I am male and have only ever been attracted to women, and if asked would call myself 'straight.' But I don't think that I should: I haven't met every man in the world, much less got to know them closely, and though there is no precedent, it is entirely possible that I would meet a man whom I am romantically attracted to.

Surely people shouldn't make sweeping generalisations such as this without full evidence: if we remove the romantic element and say, for example: "I hate all black people," this is considered wrong, as whilst someone may have disliked every black person they've met, they can't rightfully apply that to the entirety of the group. Why should it be different for romantic attraction to a gender?

Just wondering if anybody else has an opinion on the matter

That's fair enough and understandable. Would your reaction change, if, in this purely hypothetical situation, there were no deceit? i.e. the person in question never claimed to be male, and assumed that you were fully informed and happy with it? Basically, that the person whom you thought you met was entirely genuine, apart from genitalia ("man trapped in woman's body" kind of thing), due to misunderstanding.

I agree wholeheartedly that no-one should be judged on basis of sexuality.

But at the same time to say that there may be a chance that I could be attracted to another male I haven't met yet is absurd. I know with 100% guarantee there is no man on Earth I would want to have sex with. None whatsoever. No matter how nice of a personality they have!

Again, they haven't met everyone to say that they aren't attracted to them...

CAN YOU JUST NOT

The notion that asexuals "haven't met the right person yet" has been used for years to belittle or erase the experiences of asexuals and essentially deny their existence. Why does it matter about the labeling? Because we DON'T experience a certain aspect of life that others do and taking away our right to label ourselves leads to this notion of "oh, everyone is bisexual/everyone is sexual" and again, ERASES US.

This is like white people claiming that we should be "colourblind". People of colour have suffered oppression and the dominant group suddenly proclaiming that references to individuality must be avoided at all costs means the oppressed groups' voices are harder to be heard because the dominant group proclaims "we're all the same" and it's taken as gospel.

CAN YOU JUST NOT

The notion that asexuals "haven't met the right person yet" has been used for years to belittle or erase the experiences of asexuals and essentially deny their existence. Why does it matter about the labeling? Because we DON'T experience a certain aspect of life that others do and taking away our right to label ourselves leads to this notion of "oh, everyone is bisexual/everyone is sexual" and again, ERASES US.

This is like white people claiming that we should be "colourblind". People of colour have suffered oppression and the dominant group suddenly proclaiming that references to individuality must be avoided at all costs means the oppressed groups' voices are harder to be heard because the dominant group proclaims "we're all the same" and it's taken as gospel.

I think a better way of putting it would be that no one can deny the possibility, however small, that they might be attracted to a gender or person at some point in their lives that they wouldn't expect to and 99% of the time wouldn't consider. There is always that possibility, however small

I also believe that sexuality can be, and is for many people, fluid and not set in stone. I used to be a lesbian. I was only attracted to women and the though of anything remotely male inside me disgusted me. I couldn't imagine ever having romanting feelings for a male. That changed, and I didn't deny myself that because of a label, but previously I was gay. That is how I felt, that is how I considered myself and that is what is important. We all have the right to give ourselves a label or not. Now, I don't label myself. I am attracted to who I am attracted to.

For someone to say that there may be a possibility, however remote that someone who feels they are entirely straight, gay, asexual, whatever - that there is a chance is not belittling, it is a statement that this is a possibility.

I think sexuality is a lot more fluid than people like to think. In ancient Athens, homosexuality was the norm for men, and this has been the same in many other cultures and even groups within society. I would say it's more like a spectrum, with some people only able to be attracted to people of the same sex, some only the other and most with the opportunity for either, depending on the circumstances.
I don't think there's anything wrong with labelling people into groups, as long as these aren't set in stone and people understand this.

No way is that true. Acceptable, sure, but definitely not the norm. That'd be societal suicide unless the heterosexual couples were churning out babies at even greater rate than Catholics are 'supposed' to.

No way is that true. Acceptable, sure, but definitely not the norm. That'd be societal suicide unless the heterosexual couples were churning out babies at even greater rate than Catholics are 'supposed' to.

I think sexuality is a lot more fluid than people like to think. In ancient Athens, homosexuality was the norm for men, and this has been the same in many other cultures and even groups within society. I would say it's more like a spectrum, with some people only able to be attracted to people of the same sex, some only the other and most with the opportunity for either, depending on the circumstances.
I don't think there's anything wrong with labelling people into groups, as long as these aren't set in stone and people understand this.