What is your sexual/romantic orientation?

29 (69%)
6 (14.3%)
2 (4.8%)
0 (0%)
Hetero-romantic asexual
1 (2.4%)
Homo-romantic asexual
0 (0%)
Bi-romantic asexual
0 (0%)
Pan-romantic asexual
0 (0%)
Aromantic asexual
0 (0%)
Unsure / "it's complicated" / other
4 (9.5%)

Total Members Voted: 42


Author Topic: Sexual Orientation  (Read 75429 times)

« Reply #120 on: January 28, 2013, 04:36:37 PM »
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

« Reply #121 on: January 28, 2013, 06:22:28 PM »
You've posted that before, I think.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?


  • Luck of the Irish
« Reply #122 on: January 28, 2013, 06:56:37 PM »
That would go nicely in the rage thread, Weegee.
Know the most important contribution of the organ Fund science girls type. It's true!

« Reply #123 on: January 28, 2013, 07:05:44 PM »
I don't know who to rage at, the narrator for caring too much, or the boys for the reasons described.

« Reply #124 on: January 28, 2013, 07:32:21 PM »
You've posted that before, I think.

They all seem alike after a point.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur


  • Steamed
« Reply #125 on: January 28, 2013, 07:38:45 PM »
In the likely-not-wanting-to-elaborate-anyway mom's defense, it DOES kind of defeat the purpose of messing around with a "formerly male" sexual identity. I say sexual because it probably does have societal implications.

« Reply #126 on: January 28, 2013, 07:39:51 PM »
That would go nicely in the rage thread, Weegee.

Except the author is just a troll.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #127 on: February 01, 2013, 09:59:57 PM »
Oh, wow, sexual characteristics vs. gender identity can probably get its own thread. It's prettttty complicated. The English language sorely needs a neutral gender personal pronoun, but I never liked xi/xe for some reason.

Oh yea, that graph. Shows up for me, huh. I was basically saying that I've been in a 5+ year relationship with an asexual and had relatively few problems with this fact. Honestly of the sexual orientations asexuality is really not very well understood by most. It's like "wait, why are you in a ltr with someone who doesn't want to have sex?" and "wait, why would someone who doesn't like sex want a boyfriend?" and all that. I can elaborate but it's one of those things that just "works" somehow.


  • Ridiculously relevant
« Reply #128 on: February 01, 2013, 11:42:10 PM »
The English language sorely needs a neutral gender personal pronoun, but I never liked xi/xe for some reason.
I use "they"/"them." Screw pluralization confusion; if it's that important for society's sake, I think English can handle one more word that means two things.
"Mario is your oyster." ~The Chef


  • Inquiring
« Reply #129 on: February 02, 2013, 09:41:35 AM »
Good for you, Steve!

I've never really understood all the emphasis society puts on sex. I mean, I understand it's an expression of intimacy and something people find pleasurable, but why is it as extremely important as people make it out to be? Why can't intimacy be expressed in different ways and be just as fulfilling? A distinct impression I've gotten is that somehow a relationship (especially marriage) is regarded as incomplete or unfulfilling or "wrong" without sex. As a hetero-romantic ace, I find that general mentality alienating and isolating.

It's comforting to know you're in a successful long-term relationship with an ace, Steve. I suppose that gives me hope. XD
For myself, though, I've come to the realization that if I were to be in a relationship, I'd rather it be with another hetero-romantic ace. (An aromantic ace would probably frustrate me, though.) Personally, I'd be really hesitant to attempt a relationship with a heterosexual because I wouldn't want that to become a possible issue in the future. Every individual is different, though, which is something to consider.

And yes, I agree wholeheartedly that our language desperately needs a singular gender-neutral pronoun. It's pretty much "they" in common vernacular, but Grammar Nazis and professors are less accepting of that. Ugh.
"The surest way to happiness is to lose yourself in a cause greater than yourself."

« Reply #130 on: February 02, 2013, 03:39:28 PM »
"They" could still see use to describe individuals who identify as more than one person.

Kill me.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #131 on: February 03, 2013, 03:03:30 AM »
I always just used "they," also. I mean, if "you" can refer to one or multiple people, why not "they?" I also have a very odd language quirk in my speech where I refer to myself as "we" in everyday speech semi-regularly (and no, I don't have multiple personalities). Yea lol English pronouns

So you identify as asexual also, Sapph? Cool. I never "got" society's fixations/hangups on sex either, and I'm ... well, "straight-ish." It's good to recognize that'd you'd prefer a heteroromantic asexual partner opposed to trying to compromise with a heterosexual -- as the latter instance runs into several problems except in rare cases. Mainly, for the heterosexual partner's needs to be met either the asexual has to have sex at least occasionally (which, for those who think this is no big deal, imagine being compelled to have sex with a member of your non-preferred sex "at least occasionally"), or be ok with letting their partner have non-romantic sex with others, which may be impractical for certain personality types. Right now the setup of my relationship is a slight mix of both (I don't really ask my partner for sexual favors since I personally have hangups with demanding things from people that they don't like) with a third element that makes the relationship far more workable sexually (which I'm not going to go into much detail on because it's semi-personal).

Of course, finding a heteroromantic asexual might be difficult, just because from what I seem to remember when I posted on AVEN for a short time to learn things about things roughly ~2/3 the members were female. If this is the actual ratio of females:males who identify as asexual, then that's problematic since your pool of potential mates is thin. Of course, if you ask me, and this is itself a somewhat controversial opinion, I think the number of people biologically wired to simply not like sex is about the same for both sexes, and that societal pressures are a big part of the reason some females identify as asexual. That is, females are more "desirable" when they are exclusive sexually and are looked down at for having sex whenever they want to, and males are more "desirable" when they have sex frequently and are often pressured into trying to find partners when they may not be thrilled by this idea. Thus, women are more likely to develop subconscious attitudes towards sex that lead them to not enjoy it. It's kind of how a lot more women identify as bisexual than men, because there's some kind of stigma against men being with people of the same sex that's stronger than that of women being with other women. I don't know, though.

Really, there's a lot more to it than even that but that's just a summary of what I've observed on the topic. Feel free to add on to or correct whatever.

« Reply #132 on: February 03, 2013, 06:04:33 AM »
Don't feel bad about using they/them/their as singular. That's how old-school English worked, until eighteenth-century grammarians tried to straitjacket English into following the rules of Latin grammar and successfully hijacked the school system.

This is the same reason some people think you can't end a sentence with a preposition. There is no rule. English is not Latin. Your teachers were wrong. No professional English linguist alive would ding you for writing, "Someone peed their pants." Only n00bs teaching middle school.

(Interestingly, the second-person never got hijacked. No one thinks twice about using you as both singular or plural. Compare to French or Bulgarian, where those are different words.)


  • Inquiring
« Reply #133 on: February 03, 2013, 12:28:01 PM »
The whole not-being-able-to-end-sentences-with-prepositions thing is really, really stupid. I mean, if you can find a way to structure a sentence in a way that doesn't end in a preposition, fantastic, but if it makes the sentence sound awkward and clunky, no. And typically it does.

I also don't see what the big deal is about using "you" in the generic sense. Replacing it with "one" is awkward. And completely restructuring a sentence to avoid it is also annoying. However, this is a "rule" I'm very careful about following in regard to formal writing. I'm pretty careful about the singular they/them/their, too, and sometimes I word the sentence so I can use it in the plural sense. But I still think it's dumb. And this is coming from a stickler for grammar.

.....Anyway. Re: Insane Steve:

Yeah, I wouldn't want to have to compromise there. I don't think it's fair to the other person that their needs not be met, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to feel guilted into it, even if they never actually pressured me. And there's no way in heck I'd be okay with the other person getting their "needs" met elsewhere. At least in my case, it just seems like a lose-lose situation to me, and I could see resentment and tension slowly building. I suppose, in theory, I could maybe tolerate the other person...pleasuring himself to meet those "needs," but in reality I think even that would bother me and really creep me out.

Haha, I remember my mom saying I could marry a eunuch or someone who otherwise can't...ahem...function "down there."
I said, "Yeah, but even if they couldn't do IT, they'd still probably wanna do other STUFF."
Her response was, "...Good point."

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I briefly mentioned before that an aromantic ace would probably frustrate me. Think of it as similar to how a romantic ace could frustrate a sexual person. If I were in a romantic relationship, I'd want romantic intimacy like cuddling, hand-holding, and maybe even G-rated kissing and stuff. (Man, that sounds really cheesy...) And if they were like "NO TOUCHY EVAR!" I'd be like, Ô_o. And I'm not even a touchy-feely person. Otherwise the relationship would be friendship. And friendship is wonderful and fulfilling and all that, but if my expectations were romantic, it'd feel...lacking.

So yeah, I think, for me, the best solution is to find someone with the same orientation as me.

Wow, this post managed to get awkward and suggestive and probably TMI. Sorry. >_<
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 07:52:39 PM by Sapphira »
"The surest way to happiness is to lose yourself in a cause greater than yourself."


  • Normal
« Reply #134 on: February 03, 2013, 07:10:46 PM »
Ooh la la!  How exactly can "one" structure a sentence so that a preposition isn't what it ends with? ;)  So suggestive!

Maybe it's because the only other message board I frequent regards the topic of sexuality, but I don't think your post read as suggestive or awkward.  Being able to speak candidly about one's romantic/(a)sexual desires permits others to do the same.

Personally, I feel really weird to be a 22-year-old virgin, in part because of the societal pressures "to which" Insane Steve "referred."  I'm fairly socially awkward (hence my presence on an internet message board) but I attribute my lack of action to having come out only four years ago, at a smaller college with a meager gay male population.  Thankfully I'm close to San Francisco now and I'm in a chorus with 300 other gay men, and while I don't anticipate doing anybody (which is actually discouraged within the group), I think it's constructive for my sexual identity to be around men with the same orientation.  I have a "big brother" in the chorus who's 51 years old with a partner of 25 years, and the normalcy of his life experiences certainly makes it seem a lot less implausible/dramatic that I will meet/date someone.

So yeah, I guess if I were to give out advice based on my own experiences so far, it's merely to find a group of people with similar identities within which you can openly embrace those aspects of yourself.  Pun intended? (is "embracing" romantic?)
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."