I’d say your sexuality is “I like traditionally feminine people”.
This is why I don’t like the IA+ LGBTQIA+. Q was a good stopping point because queer is such a great way of saying “it’s complicated but not straight.”
Queer is a nice big tent we can all get under instead of performative labeling or over complication.
I wish people didn’t hyperfixate on labels so much these days. I feel like it causes more problems than it solves in terms of creating an identity someone needs to stick to instead of letting people just be themselves.
Agreed.
The desire to subdivide ourselves appears to have been very beneficial to the ruling class in many ways.
Agreed, fuck who you like and who wants to fuck you, why must something as complex and messy as your slice of humanity be categorized?
Probably bisexual, but you’ve got a type.
Yeah. Let’s not overcomplicate it. They’re bi with a preference for femininity.
You’re horny.
labels are useless last a certain point. you’re you and that’s all that matters.
if you absolutely need to pick a label (for a doctor’s form or whatever) bi would be what I would choose since what they’re really asking there is what genders do you sleep with.
If you’re looking for a technical term, you would fall under gynosexual. But even with the term: only you can truly define your own sexuality.
I’d say I generally lean the same way, and I consider myself bi.
Sounds like bi with a femme preference
I think trying to define it is fairly pointless. We love what we love and we lust what we lust. Rather than defining it, I wish we could all just accept that and stop hating people for having different preferences.
Yep, but sometimes you want to communicate about your preferences, and then you need understandable terminology. Giving names to phenomena is generally useful. Discussing things is useful. Understanding natural diversity is great and important.
Fair point but I’m not sure that naming every permutation is possible. We might be better off trying to make do with charts or something.
Yes.
Yep. We don’t give names for people who like red and their second favourite colour is yellow.
Just be yourself, be kind to others and move on.
There’s also ‘neptunic’, which sounds like what you’re describing, plus attraction to androgyny.
Fucked if I know the new terms but for my entire 20+ years of sexually active life, you would be classified as bi. But like I said or implied, Im old as fuck and have no clue what the currently accepted term may be. If I need to know the new sexuality/gender terms then im fucking a woman who is way too young than I should be fucking with. Thats a statement of the types of people who live in my area and not a blanket statement that no older individuals use current sexuality identities.
Normal.
Fuck that, that’s implying any other orientation is abnormal. People should have the right words to describe their sexuality.
Thanks for downvote, but your response is still somewhere between unhelpful and a dog whistle.
i get what you’re trying to say, but maybe the poster was trying to be inclusive. being attracted to feminine people regardless of genitalia is not what most bigots would consider normal. my answer to the question “is it normal to be attracted to x” is “yes”, provided that x is a human person old enough to consent. in my opinion, it is also normal to not be attracted to anything. i am using normal in the value-judgement sense, not in the statistical sense.
Is there a secret, hidden insult in that comment that only you can see? Is it in the room with us right now?
Alice: So, how do you identify?
Bob: Normal.What’s the odds Bob’s a bigot? Someone asked how to describe their sexuality, “normal” is not a useful answer.
Sure, if that’s you’re response to that exact question then yeah. But lets be honest here. Sub 10% of the population is identifies as anywhere on the LGBTQ spectrum (more or less). It’s pretty safe to say that if 90% of anything is ___ that’s the normal thing. I don’t understand why so many people are afraid of being labeled abnormal. Abnormal =/= morally wrong or anything.
It’s not a bigoted one either.
“I like feminine people of all genders, what is that?”
“Normal.”
We don’t know OPs gender, but it doesn’t matter. All sexualities are normal.
I believe it implies that being attracted to masculine people is abnormal. This isn’t an insult, but is sexist.
It…really doesn’t. OP’s gender isn’t mentioned, either.
This reminds me of that Tumblr post about how the left is so focused on “never being wrong” and how the in-fighting about the most irrelevant shit holds us back
Labels exist to describe what is. You don’t need to fit neatly into a category. You like who you like, and you shouldn’t apologize for it.
Like for me, I’m attracted to the late Andre Braugher portraying the gay man Captain Holt on Brooklyn 99 when he’s pretending to be straight and describing his fictitious partner’s heavy breasts. Nothing sexier than that, but the brain trust at Oxford hasn’t come up with a word for that one yet.
Oh fuck you! I was not prepared to learn one of my favorite sitcom characters is dead. Fuck me, now I gotta Google how he passed.
My condolences. He died too soon.
Holt talking about thigh gap is hilarious.
“There’s nothing more intoxicating than the clear absence of a penis.”
Oh fuck you! I was not prepared to learn one of my favorite sitcom characters is dead. Fuck me, now I gotta Google how he passed.I’m
Of course you don’t have to fit a box. But it’s easier to communicate your preferences if there is a lable you can use for yourself. OP is trying to find out if there is such a shortcut they could use. Explaining that they don’t necessarily need to do that is not helpful.
Sure, but it’s also helpful to know that there aren’t labels for everything, nor do we need labels for everything. Really, the only person you need to communicate your preferences to is the person you prefer. In my (admittedly limited) experience, romantic partners don’t want to be reduced to a subset of their attractive physical features. “I like you” is generally sufficient, and it’s not really anybody else’s business what you like or don’t like. We’re conditioned to try to label ourselves, and I would argue that it is unhealthy reinforcing that conditioning by inventing new labels.
OP could describe themselves as bi or pan or omni, but none of those are the sum total of OP’s lived experience. We should describe ourselves, not define ourselves.
I agree. I just percieve OP’s post as trying to find a lable because they just want to know whether there is one. It’s ok to want to know and telling them they don’t need it is not helpful.
Find your limitation, become a label.
