I take offense to the term "sexual orientation"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 6:49 AM GMT
    I find this term not justifiable to my gay identity because i am not JUST sexually attracted to guys but I want to form emotional connection with them. I am not just attracted to male anatomy, I am also attracted to male personalities.

    It is not just about sex. It is about feelings, emotions, bonding, love. And So, it should not be called as "sexual orientation". It should be called as "mental orientation" or just "orientation".

    The term "sexual orientation" reduces our love to sexual acts and love is more than sex.

    Am I wrong to think on these lines?
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Jan 08, 2015 7:08 AM GMT
    Interesting point of view. If we view this from the "straight" mind perspective, do we question their sexual orientation. Is it just a sexual attraction of one sex to another or is there sometime more. And if there is there is something more, then why. Generally, men and women seem to have little in common other than the desire to follow in the previous generations footsteps to settle down, get married and have a family and probably the same beliefs. And then they seem to spend the rest of their lives together struggling to understand each other and why the act the way they do.
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Jan 08, 2015 7:34 AM GMT
    I think my point on my previous comment is that maybe it is all about sexual attraction. At least for me, I think it starts with sexual attraction. So I think the term sexual orientation is correct. If I don't have to sexual attraction to another guy, then I can't even begin to ponder a longer lasting relationship with them. I get along with both men and women, and have had a sort of clicking relationship with many, but there is something internal that distinguishes that there is a difference. Just because I click with someone as friends, does not mean I want to have a deep partner/marriage relationship with them. So I think for me, 'sexual orientation' is correct. I think the term that truly annoys me is 'sexual preference', it feels like it implies that there is some sort of choice. 'Sexual Orientation' does not feel like it implies some sort of choice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 7:53 AM GMT
    No I totally understand you OP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 8:21 AM GMT

    Sexual Orientation is the professional descriptor for medical, scientific, research purposes, main sub category's are:

    Heterosexual
    Homosexual
    BiSexual
    Transexual
    ASexual




  • WhoDey

    Posts: 561

    Jan 08, 2015 2:16 PM GMT
    There are much more important things to take offense to
  • wesv

    Posts: 907

    Jan 08, 2015 2:23 PM GMT
    Sexual orientation includes emotional and physical attraction.
  • helloandgoodb...

    Posts: 620

    Jan 08, 2015 2:24 PM GMT
    to "take offense" seems extreme, but he misses the main definition of the term "sexual orientation."

    It does not mean whom you are attracted to FOR sex, it just means which sexual category (male, female, trans) is your preference to be with. "Preference" also allows for some flexibility there.

  • 24hourguy

    Posts: 364

    Jan 08, 2015 2:39 PM GMT
    better than "sexual preference" or "lifestyle choice"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 3:11 PM GMT
    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 08, 2015 4:25 PM GMT
    For me personally, usually the extra emotions I would feel when with a guy are there precisely because sex is involved. I don't feel these things for guys I don't have sex with (or possibly have sex with), even if I can imagine myself having sex with them. If you mean you like male personalities more than female personalities, I think many straight guys would say that as well. Often I hear comments from straight guys when referring to what it would be like if they were gay along the lines of, "it is somebody you can hang out with as if he were one of your guy friends, and also have sex with. That would be awesome." And conversely, many gay guys prefer female personalities. Like with any description though, it won't cover every individual person's thoughts and experiences. That is an important thing to learn in life. Labels and language in general are just approximations, and will never be accurate for all (or even most of) the individuals they encompass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 4:33 PM GMT
    wesv saidSexual orientation includes [both] emotional and physical attraction.

    Correct. I think this is a semantic non-issue.

    My sexual orientation is gay because I'm attracted to the male sex for all purposes, including emotional & physical. I prefer guys for holding a discussion, holding hands, and holding dick. So I'm not offended, even proud, to have my sexual orientation identified as being gay. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 4:44 PM GMT
    helloandgoodbi saidto "take offense" seems extreme, but he misses the main definition of the term "sexual orientation."

    It does not mean whom you are attracted to FOR sex, it just means which sexual category (male, female, trans) is your preference to be with. "Preference" also allows for some flexibility there.


    Very correct in the sense that he sexualized the word "sexual", and I'm a little offended at that.

    Not so correct, however, on your use of the word preference, for while a gay person might prefer having even non-sexualized but romanticized feelings with the same sex (as if), their sexuality, romanticized or otherwise, has nothing to do with preference, and while a hetero might prefer the same with the opposite sex (when not bromancing) they also have no choice as to what turns them on. Sexual attraction called a preference connotes an option as opposed to an orientation which denotes a wiring.

    If you develop a taste for something, that's a preference. If you are born oriented towards something, that's an orientation.

    I'm fully functional in my romanticism and so I absolutely have fallen in love with females but never sexually as their sex does nothing for me but maybe make me cringe. I might even--whether by a developed taste, or of conditioning, etc., though I don't, have a preference for being romantic with females but I do not have a choice in my sexual attraction towards same sex. Preference in that sense is not a matter of orientation, of sexual attraction. Even if a bi might be so described depending on their mood, it's otherwise not an overall good descriptor as it does not fit the rest of the pattern.

    Meanwhile, do you people not wiki? Because it answers in its very first line on the topic the OP's inquiry.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
    Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender....

    ...the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice

    ...

    Sexual orientations

    Asexual ·
    Bisexual ·
    Heterosexual ·
    Homosexual

    Non-binary categories

    Androphilia and gynephilia ·
    Pansexuality ·
    Polysexuality ·
    Third gender ·
    Two-Spirit
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 08, 2015 4:53 PM GMT
    OP has issues with sex, but that won't change the fact that he wants a man as more than just a friend.
  • Krispy1985

    Posts: 24

    Jan 08, 2015 4:56 PM GMT
    Is Pansexuality when you dig chefs ?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 5:09 PM GMT
    sexual orientation is like being putting in a box, limiting and frustrating, we all humans are sexual therefore we are all sexually oriented.
    It all started with WWII when there was the need to discriminate heteros from homos.
    What determine sexual attraction chemistry, as most animals lets say mammals do, by smelling each other. It seems basic but it's how it works.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 5:10 PM GMT
    stronghands saidsexual orientation is like being putting in a box, limiting and frustrating, we all humans are sexual therefore we are all sexually oriented.
    It all started with WWII when there was the need to discriminate heteros from homos.
    What determines sexual attraction is chemistry, as most animals, lets say mammals do, by smelling each other. It seems basic but it's how it works.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 5:13 PM GMT
    Krispy1985 saidIs Pansexuality when you dig chefs ?



    It's a fetish for doing the chef while in a kitchen with a pot rack and a panoramic view.

    stylish-kitchen-with-view.jpg

    Currently pansexuality seems aka omnisexual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 5:15 PM GMT
    peeps that you dont want are so jonsing to know who is in your bed; like employers, parents and your jesus. They desperately need the language to describe you.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 08, 2015 5:18 PM GMT
    stronghands saidsexual orientation is like being putting in a box, limiting and frustrating, we all humans are sexual therefore we are all sexually oriented.
    It all started with WWII when there was the need to discriminate heteros from homos.
    What determine sexual attraction chemistry, as most animals lets say mammals do, by smelling each other. It seems basic but it's how it works.

    Right. And Oscar Wilde went to prison for bad hair.

    Edit: it's actually troubling to see people rewrite gay history as though straight people made us up just so they'd have someone to persecute.

    Whatever happened to, We're here, we're queer, get used to it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 6:29 PM GMT
    angry_as_hell saidI find this term not justifiable to my gay identity because i am not JUST sexually attracted to guys but I want to form emotional connection with them. I am not just attracted to male anatomy, I am also attracted to male personalities.

    It is not just about sex. It is about feelings, emotions, bonding, love. And So, it should not be called as "sexual orientation". It should be called as "mental orientation" or just "orientation".

    The term "sexual orientation" reduces our love to sexual acts and love is more than sex.

    Am I wrong to think on these lines?


    The problem is, if you remove the sexual attraction bit, what you are left with is a bromance. Nothing wrong with that, but given you are sexually attracted to men, you might then be seen as a gay man who is desperately trying to repress his, erm, sexual orientation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 6:45 PM GMT
    Yes... but if your mental affinity for the male persona stimulates your sexuality, then your sexual orientation is geared toward men. if you become sexually turned on more so by the mind, your orientation is sapiosexual; if you're turned on by the spirit of any individual regardless of prescribed sex, you are pansexual. If you are only attracted to the persona of another while not desiring sex whatsover,you're considered to by asexual. affinity without sex is called a friendship, affinity with is sexual orientation. There is nothing wrong or incorrect about the phrase.

    Your points make some sense, but it is a bit flawed in the sense that you're incorporating society's perverse lens of sexuality to the diminishing of love. Sex derives from love, regardless of how strong of an attempt there is to defile it through rape or any other destructive means. ultimately abuse is still not right, but it will never be able to overpower the creative abilities and limitless of love and sex itself when understood properly. If you're sexually attracted to something or someone, a piece of you feels love for that thing or person.

    If you want to get angry at a term, get angry at the term gay you used to describe yourself, since it is a word that evolved from previous definitions such effeminate and flamboyant man, to men who molested and raped children, which are both definitions used for the word gay in previous centuries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 6:53 PM GMT
    Just because your sexual orientation is homosexual doesn't mean you cannot form emotional bonds with females just as heterosexuals can form emotional bonds with those of their same gender. The difference being homosexuals prefer and seek sexual encounters with members of their own sex and heterosexuals seek sexual encounters with members of the opposite sex. It's the way we are sexually oriented whether you like the term or not.
  • builtofbrick

    Posts: 54

    Jan 08, 2015 10:20 PM GMT
    just because you're offended, doesn't make you right
  • metta

    Posts: 39138

    Jan 08, 2015 10:31 PM GMT
    angry_as_hell saidI find this term not justifiable to my gay identity because i am not JUST sexually attracted to guys but I want to form emotional connection with them. I am not just attracted to male anatomy, I am also attracted to male personalities.

    It is not just about sex. It is about feelings, emotions, bonding, love. And So, it should not be called as "sexual orientation". It should be called as "mental orientation" or just "orientation".

    The term "sexual orientation" reduces our love to sexual acts and love is more than sex.

    Am I wrong to think on these lines?


    What?

    Sexual orientation is not just a gay thing. And your sexual orientation does not define you. It is just a part of who you are.

    Definition of SEXUAL ORIENTATION

    : the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior