how do you define your sexual orientation?

[silverwhisper]

it's a simple question, really.

ed

 

[Etoile]

I don't think it's necessarily simple for everyone...hence the "questioning" part of many GLBTQ organizations. (Yes, the Q can also stand for Queer!) For me, though, it's either/both. I label myself a queer dyke because I am not closed minded, and also because I like genderfucking FTM trans types. (No, I don't sleep with them, but I sure do check them out!) I also know plenty of butch dykes who will play with bio-men and still identify as dykes because of who they are inside, not because of who they play with.

 

[silverwhisper]

hm. perhaps i'm unusual in that respect, then.

[shrugs]

ed

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

I classify myself

as bi (or even tri) amorous...I base this on the fact that I can (and have) built relationships with all types of gender configurations. So obviously my answer was the second one.

 

[madmanmike]

i am a person. i am male. i love. what else is there to say.

 

[kbate]

I identify as lesbian because I can only form intimate relationships with similarly minded women. I was able to sleep with men at one time, but I could never have an intimate relationship with one, making the sex rather mechanical and unfulfilling, and the overall feeling generated less than satisfactory.

Who I sleep with is less important to me than the way I feel about myself and my relationships with others.

 

[DustyWolfe]

Used to when I was asked the question I would respond "I love who I love, I can't help who's mind I fall in love with"

Prior to starting my transition I classified myself as a lesbian but I think it was more because I could easily fit into the dyke community. Now... I suppose it's easier for me to say Bi. I was always somewhat attracted to guys but never could wrap my mind around it. I guess because I figured I wouldnt be treated as a guy. Now that I'm allowing myself to be more comfortable with who I am I find that the male attraction is going stronger (of course that could also be the testosterone I'm on now ) I could almost classify myself as a trannyfag since I've gotten a pretty good attraction to guys, especially tranny guys. But doesnt that just create another labeling nightmare for some people?

But seriously... Love is love. I may fall in love with a guy, a girl, an intersexed person, a tranny.... Who knows?

 

[snowy ciara]

If I really must be labeled, I'm bisexual as I'm pretty equally attracted to both sexes. I'd rather just be classified as "sexual" and continue to fall in love with people rather than plumbing.

 

[DustyWolfe]

If I really must be labeled, I'm bisexual as I'm pretty equally attracted to both sexes. I'd rather just be classified as "sexual" and continue to fall in love with people rather than plumbing.

amen sistah

 

[snowy ciara]

medium 5-ing the Mystical Lupine and doing a mini-hijack It's good to see you back again! {end mini-hijack}

 

[Equinoxe]

I will use whatever terms I find applicable to help another person understand myself, but I do not define myself by those terms; I am who I am, I am attracted to those whom I am attracted to, and I form emotional bonds with whomever I form emotional bonds with.

 

[Morwen]

I try not to, really I don't.

 

[Never]

Lesbian.
Me female - you Jane. That simple

 

[Etoile]

Thanks for that explanation, Dusty. I have wondered how transmen go from being lesbians to being gay men - I have a few friends who went the same path. As you've described it, though, it makes perfect sense.

I think it's noble to prefer not to label oneself, but I can't help but think it's somewhat unrealistic. We are a society that thrives on labels - we depend on them to know how to interact with each other. They also simplify our lives: instead of having to explain one's non-conforming sexual preferences every time someone tries to pick us up in a bar, we can just use that handy label, which for the most part is widely understood even if there are slight personal variances. Yes, in an ideal world we could live without labels...but the way we are now, I feel they are an important tool for communication. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

[snowy ciara]

I think it's noble to prefer not to label oneself, but I can't help but think it's somewhat unrealistic. We are a society that thrives on labels - we depend on them to know how to interact with each other.

Call me Don Quixote and point me at a windmill then. I may be fighting a losing battle with the labels, but I'm still going to fight the good fight.

Serious now...

I prefer to be just known as sexual, but will use bi-sexual with people I don't know to well. But, quite frequently, when I say "bisexual" I get a knowing look and a smarmy little "But which do you prefer?" And when I say that I don't have a preference, people don't believe me. On the Kinsey Scale I actually do fall fairly close to dead center, and I resent and have no patience with people who insist that I must jump off the fence in either direction. It's simply not gonna happen! (I only lean slightly to the het side because part of the scale is based on your actual sexual history, and there's only been a guy so far. I could lie about it, I guess, to get myself dead center, but that's not the way I do things.) The other day, when I bluntly told an interested party that I don't really lean either way, they came back with "when you think of your life partner, do you see yourself sitting on the front porch in a rocking chair with a man or woman next to you?" Being blunt, I don't see it with any person right now, and I had never really asked myself that question. I honestly don't know.

 

[Equinoxe]

I think it's noble to prefer not to label oneself, but I can't help but think it's somewhat unrealistic. We are a society that thrives on labels - we depend on them to know how to interact with each other. They also simplify our lives: instead of having to explain one's non-conforming sexual preferences every time someone tries to pick us up in a bar, we can just use that handy label, which for the most part is widely understood even if there are slight personal variances. Yes, in an ideal world we could live without labels...but the way we are now, I feel they are an important tool for communication. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

There's a difference in using a label to describe yourself and using a label to define yourself. It's perhaps a subtle difference, but I find it is an important difference. Labels are important, but all labels of sexual orientation fail in some respect -- largely due to the fact that people will use them to mean whatever they want them to mean. The personal variances aren't slight, they render the word meaningless if the other person is aware of them, usually as they contradict the societal and dictionary definitions.

Furthermore, it's not that hard to grant yourself a quick, accurate description in a situation such as being hit on; if they happen to be of a non-preferred gender, just tell them that you like the other. If you're only interested in women and you're hit on by a man, "I only like women" is not that much longer or more complicated than "I'm a lesbian" -- which may mean you're only interested in women sexually and romantically, or that you're interested in women only romantically but not necessarily sexually, or that you prefer to "culturally define" yourself as such, etc. Granted, the average man hitting on a woman somewhere is probably not aware of such differences, but those differences are there and they're not small.

 

[Teal]

Well I would say Iam gay but thats only cause I feel I was born in the wrong body.

but as it stands bi

 

[Equinoxe]

Well I would say Iam gay but thats only cause I feel I was born in the wrong body.

but as it stands bi

You'll pardon my questioning, but how does that make sense?

 

[Etoile]

Call me Don Quixote and point me at a windmill then. I may be fighting a losing battle with the labels, but I'm still going to fight the good fight.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I hadn't seen such a detailed explanation of the Kinsey Scale before; thanks for providing that link! I think I would probably turn out to be a Kinsey 5.

 

[Etoile]

There's a difference in using a label to describe yourself and using a label to define yourself. It's perhaps a subtle difference, but I find it is an important difference. Labels are important, but all labels of sexual orientation fail in some respect -- largely due to the fact that people will use them to mean whatever they want them to mean. The personal variances aren't slight, they render the word meaningless if the other person is aware of them, usually as they contradict the societal and dictionary definitions.

Furthermore, it's not that hard to grant yourself a quick, accurate description in a situation such as being hit on; if they happen to be of a non-preferred gender, just tell them that you like the other. If you're only interested in women and you're hit on by a man, "I only like women" is not that much longer or more complicated than "I'm a lesbian" -- which may mean you're only interested in women sexually and romantically, or that you're interested in women only romantically but not necessarily sexually, or that you prefer to "culturally define" yourself as such, etc. Granted, the average man hitting on a woman somewhere is probably not aware of such differences, but those differences are there and they're not small.

*nods*
You speak wisely.

 

[Equinoxe]

*nods*
You speak wisely.

Thank you, it is something I have given a lot of thought to.

 

[Never]

Humans obviously don't populate the perfect world, as verbal communication and abstract thought require labels.

 

[Equinoxe]

Humans obviously don't populate the perfect world, as verbal communication and abstract thought require labels.

Yes, labels are necessary and proper in many respects, but there is a problem with contradictory meaning and overdefinition. Labels are good for description, definition is another matter; desciptions are naturally fluid (when a word no longer describes you, you no longer use it), definitions, at best, have a forced fluidity. It becomes a sort of clash of the individual and the group, since any label is used to relate to the group, but through the filter of the individual.

 

[Never]

I don't believe your response had anything to do with my statement. But, you have fun with that.

 

[Equinoxe]

I don't believe your response had anything to do with my statement. But, you have fun with that.

My response to your statement or my response initially? Maybe not on the former, definitely not on the latter.