Jump to content
LGBTAtreyu

Are some sexualities fake??

Recommended Posts

Dreamsexual
8 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

... which underlines my point. Do a search on AVEN, you'll find a hardcore of people who are convinced it's a sexual orientation.  It means 'wildly veering feelings about sexuality', as far as I can tell. If you wanted one word for the sake of conversation, 'unsure' would do it.

So, there's already a group of people which use the term.

 

And obviously they feel it captures something more accurately than 'unsure'.  I think I can see why they might prefer their term to 'unsure', as 'unsure' doesn't even fit the standard sexuality label format.  Surely 'unsure' doesn't really mean the same as 'wildly varying'-sexuality.

 

Obviously, you and they disagree about it being a sexual orientation.  Why?  And why is it a problem?

 

Was as it created on tumblr?

 

Was it made simply because someone had a particular 'mood'?

 

Do they insist other people use that term?

 

And can you think of another example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC
4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Terms like that proliferate, so insisting that the newest pseudo-greco-latinate term someone on Tumblr has invented for whatever mood they're in should be given credence just makes asexuality in general look ever more special snowflakish.

Which is always my point, yeah. Do I think all people who identify as asexual are actually asexual? No way. Do I think some people are asexual, thus it deserves to be taken seriously? Absolutely. And I would think asexuals would want to be taken seriously. All these terms denoting highly specific sexual/romantic preferences and making them out to be orientations are extremely damaging to the cause of asexual visibility and acceptance. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

You can easily find some more examples with a bit of trawling through AVEN. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

 

They can discuss what it  means as much as they like, but it's not an orientation, in the sense of preferring to have sex with men, or women, or either, or none. It's a description of a state of mind, so suffixing it -sexual is overclaiming, and asserting that it's an orientation is meaningless, pointless outside that very small group of people, and makes asexuals look even more like special snowflakes than they already do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

@Telecaster68 @CBC

I guess all this boils down to two things, then:

 

a) what is the difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual preference?

b) who determines what is the right word for someone to use of themselves?

 

I'd be curious to hear a fluxsexual's side on this.

What other made-up sexualities were you thinking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

Well there's sapiosexual...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Just now, CBC said:

Well there's sapiosexual...

Lol, wtf is that ? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

No, it boils down to communication, which is what words are for, and what a word communicates, if it communicates anything. Insisting on one particular meaning for a word, or that everyone should use a recently made up word instead of a perfectly good existing one because the new one has a spurious scientificism doesn't communicate anything more than 'I insist my mundane traits make me special'.

 

8 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

What other made-up sexualities were you thinking about?

8214980-3x2-940x627.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, Dreamsexual said:

Lol, wtf is that ? :)

I'm starting to get the impression you're arguing a point from the basis of very little actual information here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

@Telecaster68

 

So you disagree that it boils down to these:

 

a) what is the difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual preference?

b) who determines what is the right word for someone to use of themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

I'm starting to get the impression you're arguing a point from the basis of very little actual information here.

Yes, I don't know anything.  Hence why I'm asking questions.  Seems the reasonable thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

F6-E67238-DC0-B-44-D9-8-C4-A-65-BE110-CB

 

As opposed to those of us turned on by people we think are stupid as a fucking brick...?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Just now, Dreamsexual said:

Yes, I don't know anything.  Hence why I'm asking questions.  Seems the reasonable thing to do.

Or, you could do as I suggested and do the research yourself. Google is fantastically useful for this.

1 minute ago, Dreamsexual said:

@Telecaster68

 

So you disagree that it boils down to these:

 

a) what is the difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual preference?

b) who determines what is the right word for someone to use of themselves?

Yes, I do disagree those are the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

b) who determines what is the right word for someone to use of themselves?

What if I determine the right word for myself is 'helicopter'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, CBC said:

 

As opposed to those of us turned on by people we think are stupid as a fucking brick...?

I don't think that's what the term implies, or at least I woukdnt have assumed it.  It would, at first glance to me, communicate that someone is only sexually interested in highly intelligent people. 

 

Why is this not a 'proper' term?

 

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

Or, you could do as I suggested and do the research yourself. Google is fantastically useful for this.

Why go through the effort when I have an expert in conversation with me?  I'd only research it wrong anyway.  I'd rather interrogate the one making the provocative claims directly in front of me so as to better understand where they are coming from.

 

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

What if I determine the right word for myself is 'helicopter'

In the context of a discussion on their sexuality?  I'd ask them if they meant they are attracted only to helicopters as a narrow form of objectum.  

 

What would your response be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Just now, Dreamsexual said:

Why go through the effort when I have an expert in conversation with me?

Why challenge a point you don't know anything about in the first place? Isn't demanding someone do the research you need to back up your point rather arrogant?

 

1 minute ago, Dreamsexual said:

In the context of a discussion on their sexuality?

No, in any context, since in your view no-one can be challenged over what they choose to call themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

I mean, for sure there are people who are into really nerdy types, or only want partners with genius IQs, but whether that needs its own term is another matter. It sounds pretentious as hell; why not just make it clear that intellect is an important factor instead of making up words? Same thing and it doesn't sound ridiculous whatsoever (because it isn't, it's normal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

For a while, I had something like gynomammosalsesexual in my description, which is compound of 'women, boobs and funny' I made up after two minutes googling. I regularly got PMs asking me what this orientation was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

Why challenge a point you don't know anything about in the first place?

Because that's how it normally seems to work.  Someone makes an interesting and challenging point, and because I don't already know everything about it, I ask questions.  Again, it seems reasonable.  If it doesn't to you, fair enough, but I think I'm ok to ask question or challenge points so long as I'm not rude or aggressive about it.  I just thought conversation and discussion worked that way.

 

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

No, in any context

I thought we were talking about made-up sexualities?  Im not interested in discussing anything else at this time.

 

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

in your view no-one can be challenged over what they choose to call themselves

Where did I say that?  I don't believe that.  You're misrepresenting me.

 

2 minutes ago, CBC said:

but whether that needs its own term is another matter

Indeed.  That seems a fair discussion to have.  But if there currently exists no term that adequately captures the idea that someone's sexual identity is defined by only finding highly intelligent people attractive, why would the creation of such a term be problematic for others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

For a while, I had something like gynomammosalsesexual in my description, which is compound of 'women, boobs and funny' I made up after two minutes googling. I regularly got PMs asking me what this orientation was.

So you just made up a joke orientation.  That's cool.  But I don't see the relevance here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

What's wrong with "I'm attracted to intelligent people"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
3 minutes ago, CBC said:

What's wrong with "I'm attracted to intelligent people"?

Wrong?  No one is saying that would be wrong.

But what is wrong with 'sapiosexual'?

 

Like, I don't think anything is wrong either with 'I'm attracted to men' or 'I'm homosexual'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

@Dreamsexual I think you and @PaganUnicorn should have a discussion somewhere, so you could question each other endlessly till one of your heads exploded.

 

2 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Because that's how it normally seems to work.

No, normally people see a proposition, and think either 'hmmm I know nothing about that, I shall find out more since it's very easy to do so', or 'that doesn't fit my experience, I shall use my knowledge and experience to challenge it'. Saying 'no you're wrong because, well, I don't know really' is generally viewed as poor form.

 

4 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

I thought we were talking about made-up sexualities?  Im not interested in discussing anything else at this time.

The concept we were discussing was whether people's assertions about their labels were beyond challenge. Clearly I'm not a helicopter, so if I was to insist as part of a discussion that I am, would you find it unreasonable for me to be challenged?

 

In all goodwill, are you aware you frequently come over as quite trolly in your posts, that last one in particular? It's the combination of perseverating, weird logic, repeated demands for widely accepted things to be argued from first principles and/or examples, claims you didn't say things that you did say, and goalpost shifting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

 I think you and @PaganUnicorn should have a discussion somewhere, so you could question each other endlessly till one of your heads exploded.

Why are you now insulting paganUnicorn?  How is that helping?

 

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

No, normally people see a proposition, and think either 'hmmm I know nothing about that, I shall find out more since it's very easy to do so', or 'that d

I guess I'm different, then.  Nevermind.  Not a problem, is it, to have someone ask you questions after making a provocative statement. You can always choose not to respond.

 

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

The concept we were discussing was whether people's assertions about their labels were beyond challenge.

That's not what I was discussing.  

 

5 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

In all goodwill, are you aware you frequently come over as quite trolly in your posts,

I was not aware that I came over as a troll frequently in my posts, no.  Is this a widely held perception on this forum?  I had no idea.

 

6 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's the combination of perseverating, weird logic, repeated demands for widely accepted things to be argued from first principles and/or examples, claims you didn't say things that you did say, and goalpost shifting.

I don't know what 'perseverating' is.  I didn't realise my logic was weird.  I'm not sure why arguing from first principles is wrong. I don't believe I make any false or lying claims (certainly not deliberately).  I don't believe I ever shift goalposts (again, certainly not deliberately).

 

Not sure how to respond.  You clearly believe I'm a troll.  Not sure what to say to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Just now, Dreamsexual said:

Not sure what to say to that.

'I'm not', if you're not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

I don't even really know what's going on here anymore and I'll be honest, I've completely lost interest in the discussion, so I'm out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

'I'm not', if you're not...

But why would you believe me when you've already responded to me as if I was?  How could I ever convince you at this point?  And if you're not the only one who thinks this, but it's a general perception across the forum, then there's something seriously wrong with my posting style.  

 

I am only ever sincere as far as I'm concerned.  But this is obviously not communicated well.  I'm not sure how I can communicate more clearly?  Neither am I sure of your motives at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pandark
45 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

They can discuss what it  means as much as they like, but it's not an orientation, in the sense of preferring to have sex with men, or women, or either, or none. It's a description of a state of mind, so suffixing it -sexual is overclaiming, and asserting that it's an orientation is meaningless, pointless outside that very small group of people, and makes asexuals look even more like special snowflakes than they already do.

This is pretty much the essence of gatekeeping. A minority group is most easily embraced by a majority group if they keep it simple as possible. If everyone who isn't sexually attracted to real people calls themselves simply ace it will be easier to be acknowledged as a group by the rest of humanity. Personally I can tolerate some niche words, but using these words outside of very specific contexts makes it difficult to relate. I guess in a sense you could compare it to slang.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
5 minutes ago, Pandark said:

This is pretty much the essence of gatekeeping. A minority group is most easily embraced by a majority group if they keep it simple as possible. If everyone who isn't sexually attracted to real people calls themselves simply ace it will be easier to be acknowledged as a group by the rest of humanity. Personally I can tolerate some niche words, but using these words outside of very specific contexts makes it difficult to relate. I guess in a sense you could compare it to slang.

The alternative is that anyone can say they're asexual, regardless of what they actually think, feel or do, and as a non-ace who's not completely embedded in the LGBT discourse, it's very clear to me that the micro-labelling contributes a lot to the 'bunch of weirdos' impression.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pandark

I can see that. I was born weird, so for me personally little at stake. I'm trying to figure out what's good for me and the greater good, though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iff

Please stay on topic and not be discussing trolling, sealioning etc etc. Lets keep things civil in the discussion.

 

Thanks,

iff,

moderator, sexual partners, friends & allies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...