Most people aren't attracted to an entire gender so why do we frame attraction in those terms so much?
Most people aren't attracted to an entire gender so why do we frame attraction in those terms so much?
I'm attracted to Tofu. and also coding. you could say i'm attracted to 'some things'.
I'm fundamentally attracted to women and turned off by men. It's the simplest way to describe my sexual orientation. The fact that I'm not attracted to all women doesn't change that.
Been sexually active, with many partners, for almost 40-years and this lines up with my experiences. The vast majority of us are solidly heterosexual, a small percentage homosexual and a tiny percentage bisexual or anything else.
Lemmy's general take is that we're all on a mushy spectrum. Well, yeah, the spectrum certainly exists, but almost all of us fall hard to one side or the other.
My theory is this, it's because of the younger demographics around here and society's new openness. I'm exactly as you, but when I was younger, and had sexuality been as openly discussed as now, there were years when I might have identified as having a touch of homosexuality or even trans in me.
Grew up playing with the girls because I wasn't much into "boy" stuff. Never been worried that I'd be judged for wearing feminine clothes, and to this day I wear women's outwear because it's cut for my skinny ass. Had a few homosexual fantasies in my teens, but I would never have been turned on, even a little, in a real life situation. LOL, said many times, "I should have been born a woman." But I now understand, having feminine traits and likes in no way speaks to my sexuality.
Add to all that the fact that teens are casting about trying to learn about themselves. Identifying as a member of the LGBT group says, "I'm different! I'm not like you haters!" I would have done it, even though in retrospect it wasn't remotely true. Support them, please, but odds are strongly against being an actual member.
Another interesting experience, and I have no idea what this says about me: My gaydar is, and always has been, broken. Y'all would laugh at how clueless I can be. Guess I simply never cared about other's sexuality?
Ironically, I expect this post to get blasted with misunderstandings from the very people screaming that we need to better understand one another.
Well, yeah, the spectrum certainly exists, but almost all of us fall hard to one side or the other.
I've heard it described as a bimodal distribution. Bisexuality seems pretty common though. Statistics say it's more common for women to identify as bisexual than lesbian. The majority of women I've dated have been bisexual, but with a preference for men. Most non-straight men I've known have been fully homosexual. Personally, I'm straight. I've always had a hard time trying to figure out what a conventionally attractive man was (mostly to make myself more attractive), and still sometimes get surprised when someone describes a particular man as attractive. I find most women physically attractive, at least in certain ways (though I have certain preferences, of course). Personality seems to be what makes or breaks the attraction for me.
For what it’s worth I think most of your theory is correct.
That doesn't resolve the question though. What does it mean to be "fundamentally attracted to women" if you're not actually attracted to most women?
I'm attracted to femininity, first and foremost. Femininity is a requirement, and it's not flexible. But then there are other more flexible preferences about specific appearance or personality details I might like in a woman.
Liking ice cream doesn't mean you have to like every single flavor.
Most people don't like every single movie, so why do people say they like movies?
What?
My exact reaction. What is an entire gender? And what isn't?
I like burgers
But not every burger
I only am attracted to certain women, but I think I am attracted to all burgers.
That said I'll even settle for a Totino's pizza, which I'm not sure you could accurately say there is bread, cheese or tomatos invovled in the making of it.
The dry composition of the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, It also contains fractional amounts of argon and carbon dioxide and trace amounts of other gases, such as helium, neon, methane, krypton, and hydrogen
We make is simply by calling it air
Comparison would check out if we said Oxygen every time instead of air.
I would consider myself generally attracted to an entire gender. The degrees of attraction is what varies. It goes from low to high based on something mysterious in my brain. I also recognize that is how I happen to be wired but others are wired differently. In the end, that diversity of wiring keeps humans interesting and diverse in both thinking and biology.
Technically speaking I would assume you are at most attracted to an entire gender of your own species, possibly also limited to certain age ranges.
True. And funny thing to add to that. As I age, so does that wiring. Where I used to put more weight on appearance, I'm now more likely to be turned off by certain behaviors one might describe as pedantry.
When I was younger let's say 10, I couldn't understand how people found older people attractive. It is amazing how it changes over time. Had you asked me if I thought a 50 year old women could be attractive, to me at 10, never could have.. at 35.. they are slowly becoming more and more attractive.
Because most people have basic limitations for who they’re willing to accept/connect/make sex with. Most people tend to be heterosexual, so they’re only going to go with male/female pairings and that’s the only gender pairing they’re going to look at. Other people are going to be more open-minded, or were born with different preferences, and going outside traditional societal norms is fine for them. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with either viewpoint, it’s ok to have personal preferences and to have limitations about who you’re comfortable getting intimate with. We frame attraction based on our personal preferences.
So, no, I’m personally not attracted to literally every single female on the planet, but women are my personal preference/limitation, I’m only attracted to females. As a hetero male, there’s just no other way to frame my attraction, that’s just what it is. HOWEVER, there’s a vast array of other orientations out there where that sort of binary attraction doesn’t make sense and is probably counter-productive. I think that’s why we see so many different expressions of sexuality now, because people see the limitations that come from the mainstream male/female model and it can’t be used to properly explain their preferences.
Subscribed to a dating coach 20-years ago that was shockingly astute. Never paid for his materials, but the free emails basically said all there was to say. He really understood human nature as it relates to dating. He didn't talk about getting laid or how to manage a relationship, only how to get more dates, the rest being on the reader. (The asshole pickup artists took work like his, disregarded anything human about it and ran full tilt into misogyny. Can't even talk about it any more without people making assumptions.)
One thing he constantly hammered home was, "Attraction is not a choice." We have zero control over what floats our boat. He never talked manipulation games, only about how to better yourself and be more attractive. One example, women don't like meek men, so stand tall, throw your shoulders back and walk with confidence. (That's not to say one requires machismo!)
Another example, women are turned off by slovenly men. It's not like they're making some sort of calculation, they're simply turned off. The feeling is instant and unanalyzed. Men are exactly the same! Large breasts are a solid turnoff for me, but I never sat down and decided that.
I cannot imagine being a man sexually attracted to another man, but once I truly internalized that attraction is not a choice, the world made a lot more sense. LOL, and I got more dates!
Because we lack the cultural vocabulary to be more specific. And because people defy such attempts at categorization.
RIGHT!????!?
FUCK.
Do you know how many times I've heard "do you like black girls" just for me to reply "only the ones who don't generalize"? Wayyy too many fucking times! It's no wonder why people subscribe to the identities media sells them. They think they can just slot themselves into a lifestyle for ticking some arbitrary boxes. I don't have any fucking people category fetishes! I have TASTE.
I'll suck your dick if you're cute enough! I haven't laid eyes on a guy so cute, but I can't imagine they don't exist.
do you like black girls
I mean yes, sure, I do like at least two of them so plural seems appropriate.
People like to put things into a box, to classify them, make them tangible, to understand at a glance. Thinking of sexuality and identity as a spectrum isn't too complicated. Instead of male or female, you have maybe something ranging from masculine to feminine, and everything in between. But where it gets confusing is how you'd describe either being somewhere on that spectrum, or to what exactly your sexual preferences range. A classical bi person would be right dead center in the middle, or maybe sway a little to one side over the other, but would you still call it bi? Maybe pan? Someone formerly hetero or gay would also be easy, being at the far end of the spectrum. But what about people who are a little more flexible in their attraction? "Girls" with dicks? "Guys" with vags? Maybe they don't even strictly identify as either one. Whether one's more hetero or gay leaning, you'd be likely somewhere halfway towards the middle of your sexual attraction spectrum, just like the people identifying & looking accordingly, but how would you describe that yourself, and others - without being disrespectful for their own identify? Maybe you're gynosexual for the feminine side? Androsexual for the male one? How many people would understand those terms though? "I like girls, including those with a little extra" - "I'm into femininity"? Terminologies are constantly changing rapidly on top of all that too, and for many things there aren't really much established terms either. This further makes it harder for people to move away from the old binary classifications, even if generally supportive in principle. But those who aren't, will obviously just see a very confusing mess of things they don't understand.
Lol it is bizarre, people do suggest having a "type"
Well, there's one very basic combination which actually results in the propagation of the human race, and a bunch of people obsessed with getting their rocks off who try to differentiate themselves from that.
how very submissive and breedable of you to say