# Whats your sexuality?



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

Aromantic Asexual.


----------



## Hiccups24-7 (Oct 17, 2009)

reefercheefer said:


> well this is what happened in my head:
> Homosexuality is detrimental to procreation, and life succeeds by passing on its genetic code. If there is a gene that causes homosexuality then it would have died off very quickly or survived due to gays having heterosexual sex to fit within social norms. Evolution has designed men for women and women for men, if given a choice why would you want anything other than the tool that was designed for the job? Thats all the opposite sex is. They are your evolutionarily designed companions. It's not just a convenient accident that the opposite sex has a required ingredient to bring life into this world, its been designed to work that way. I think that being homosexual means working against the natural design, and one thing i learned from life is that most of the time things tend to work best when being used their intended purpose..


if your theory was true then we would be all dead from hereditary diseases but here we are.... with each new birth comes the random chance of variation thus adding to the platform of natural selection. You may have noticed that even those with 'seemingly' perfect genes still give birth to variations. 

Some people are born with polio and some people are born with what appears as natural abilities like say playing the piano really well and we all accept those people.
There is no logical reason to reject someone born with a different sexual orientation or gender identity for that matter..or any variation,they didn't chose it. It's just who they are.
To view it as a black and white situation of we need to procreate as humans is putting values and expectations on all humans, even those that can't live up to it per se. This is wrong..variations can and do coexist with those that feel they were born "perfectly". There is no rule book.

Are you also against people that either choose to not have children or those that are born infertile? 

Because your POV suggests that....... and you can't pick and choose these kinds of things within an opinion.... they all mean the same thing..... variation. Which is actually a really good thing (if you are open to it)!


----------



## wonderfert (Aug 17, 2010)

Homosexual.



reefercheefer said:


> well this is what happened in my head:
> Homosexuality is detrimental to procreation, and life succeeds by passing on its genetic code. If there is a gene that causes homosexuality then it would have died off very quickly or survived due to gays having heterosexual sex to fit within social norms. Evolution has designed men for women and women for men, if given a choice why would you want anything other than the tool that was designed for the job? Thats all the opposite sex is. They are your evolutionarily designed companions. It's not just a convenient accident that the opposite sex has a required ingredient to bring life into this world, its been designed to work that way. I think that being homosexual means working against the natural design, and one thing i learned from life is that most of the time things tend to work best when being used their intended purpose.


You're imposing limits on nature. If there is a gene, why couldn't it be recessive? It wouldn't necessarily dictate that the carrier would be homosexual or bisexual themselves. 

There is a theory about the occurrence of homosexuality in men that has to do with the amount of older male siblings (Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Basically, the mother's body sees the developing male as something to attack. The more male offspring the mother has, the more her body feminizes the fetus to protect it. It's by no means a foolproof theory, particularly as it only applies towards men and those with older male siblings. But, if you'd like to go along these lines you could also say that the more offspring produced, the higher the likelihood that one or more will be homosexual in order to decrease competition with the oldest sibling's offspring. 

I realize you're saying you have nothing against homosexuals, and I won't accuse you of it. I just don't think that it pays to underestimate nature and make it as simple as phallus A goes into vagina B, and anything else could serve no possible purpose to the continuation of the species.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

wonderfert said:


> Homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not a hard and fast rule, but a noticable correlation with birth order is there, yes.

Also stress in the second trimester is supposed to be a factor?


----------



## tooboku (Jun 9, 2010)

Sexual orientation....

I like to orientate myself is such a fashion so that my dick points at a vagina.


----------



## wonderfert (Aug 17, 2010)

nevermore said:


> It's not a hard and fast rule, but a noticable correlation with birth order is there, yes.
> 
> Also stress in the second trimester is supposed to be a factor?


Absolutely, it's not a set rule. And as I said, it applies to a very specific group. Anything that applies to such a specific group shouldn't be viewed as a rule. I just pointed it out to show it may not be gene related, due to the comment that any gene that existed would have died out with heterosexual procreation.

Yes, stress towards the end of the trimester has been studied. Under stress, the mother releases androstenedione, which is shared with the fetus. Androstenedione blocks the receptors for testosterone when the central nervous system is being formed.


----------



## reefercheefer (Nov 3, 2009)

Hiccups24-7 said:


> if your theory was true then we would be all dead from hereditary diseases but here we are.... with each new birth comes the random chance of variation thus adding to the platform of natural selection. You may have noticed that even those with 'seemingly' perfect genes still give birth to variations.
> 
> Some people are born with polio and some people are born with what appears as natural abilities like say playing the piano really well and we all accept those people.
> There is no logical reason to reject someone born with a different sexual orientation or gender identity for that matter..or any variation,they didn't chose it. It's just who they are.
> ...


Thats not true at all. In fact that is very blatantly wrong. How did something i say lead to us all being dead? The survivors will more dominantly spread the trait that helped them live through that catastrophe leaving behind resistant offspring. A "gay" gene or traits or mutation would do the very opposite because being gay takes a person out of the gene pool because they dont make babies. 
Also you mention there is no logical reason to reject them because of this, and i completely agree... they are just people, and sexual orientation doesnt make people "bad", and it doesnt affect the way i value them. I just honestly think it could be a neurological disorder due to what i already know and noone is doing a good job of contradicting this. I am not saying i am right, i am saying this just makes more sense to me.


rowingden: I dont think that gays have much of a social or feminizing influence over straight men and even if they did, how does that adaption pass itself on from the gay males? 

magnus una: that is a very interesting point! I think its obvious that humans in this day and age can have a lot of factors working against them and still manage to procreate. Because of impossibly high survival rates and modern technology almost everybody gets a chance to pass on their traits. This leads to a generally weaker population because there is no quality control because death gets so few people before they successfully reproduce. Nature's crowd control comes into play when a species becomes so dominant that theyre environment cant support the swelling population, once it reaches a certain point a very large percent will die. Dominant species are also weakened by high survival rates because it allows genetic mutations (most of which are bad) to run rampant. Genetic problems are far more prevalent in children nowadays than 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. Humans are able adapt to this deficiency with strong medical care. Our extremely powerful intellect has allowed us to adapt to virtually any situation.



wonderfert said:


> You're imposing limits on nature. If there is a gene, why couldn't it be recessive? It wouldn't necessarily dictate that the carrier would be homosexual or bisexual themselves.
> 
> There is a theory about the occurrence of homosexuality in men that has to do with the amount of older male siblings (Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Basically, the mother's body sees the developing male as something to attack. The more male offspring the mother has, the more her body feminizes the fetus to protect it. It's by no means a foolproof theory, particularly as it only applies towards men and those with older male siblings. But, if you'd like to go along these lines you could also say that the more offspring produced, the higher the likelihood that one or more will be homosexual in order to decrease competition with the oldest sibling's offspring.
> 
> I realize you're saying you have nothing against homosexuals, and I won't accuse you of it. I just don't think that it pays to underestimate nature and make it as simple as phallus A goes into vagina B, and anything else could serve no possible purpose to the continuation of the species.


If there is a recessive gene then, yes, could easily be passed on for awhile but unless the gays with this gene keep it going it will just take a longer time for the gene to get bred out. I am familiar with the fact that the more boys a woman births each succeeding boy has lower testosterone and thus higher chance of turning out homosexual, but i dont see how this isnt a disorder... and the testosterone lowering effect seems to be more like collateral damage from the mother's womb trying to protect its fetus. And following your logic a step further brings me to very good explanation for a "gay gene". You say that the decreasing testosterone effect could in fact be an adaption for the eldest boys to cut competition with their younger siblings... i could buy into that seems perfectly sound and logical. The only thing i dont like about this explanation is that older siblings arent in the habit of competing with the younger ones and when they do compete, older siblings rarely lose because older siblings typically have several advantages over the younger ones in more than just the age aspect. 

Is the logic i present flawed in anyway?


----------



## Hiccups24-7 (Oct 17, 2009)

lols being gay is contagious... no get away from me!!!! eewwwwww don't touch me!!!! *fans gay air away from me*. :S
lols


----------



## wonderfert (Aug 17, 2010)

reefercheefer said:


> The only thing i dont like about this explanation is that older siblings arent in the habit of competing with the younger ones and when they do compete, older siblings rarely lose because older siblings typically have several advantages over the younger ones in more than just the age aspect.
> 
> Is the logic i present flawed in anyway?


As I've understood it, and as I stated, it would be competition amongst the offspring of the siblings, not the siblings themselves. 

It could very well be a gene. It could be other factors. It may, and is more likely, to be both. 

As for your logic being flawed, the one problem with your gene argument is here:



reefercheefer said:


> If there is a recessive gene then, yes, could easily be passed on for awhile but unless the gays with this gene keep it going it will just take a longer time for the gene to get bred out.


You are assuming, or at least seem to assume, that the only carriers of a gene that determines sexual orientation in offspring would be carried by homosexuals, and would therefore be removed from the gene pool due to a lack of procreation. A recessive gene would require both parents to be carriers of the gene before the effect of the gene would be seen, and in fact may not be seen in all cases. It may take them several children before one became a carrier or affected, as recessive genetic disorders tend to have a 1 in 4 chance of affecting offspring (Edited for terminology). If you truly do believe that a "gay gene" would only be carried by homosexuals, then your logic is indeed flawed.

The truth of the matter is, we really don't know what causes homosexuality and bisexuality yet. There are studies, and none of them have come up with a definitive answer. From personal experience, I can say that I was born this way. I've always been far more interested in women, and the only time I was with a man was when I desperately wanted to fit in with what society felt was normal. Your original comment about many gays wanting to be straight if they could was likely more a result of the way they are treated by society, rather than an actual interest in the opposite sex. Because yes, it would theoretically be easier to fit in with the majority, and what many people see as "correct." At least for awhile, until the depression and self-hate set in.


----------



## mrkedi (Nov 19, 2009)

I prefer guys, but sometimes i have gender issue.... :blushed:


----------



## rowingineden (Jun 23, 2010)

reefercheefer said:


> rowingden: I dont think that gays have much of a social or feminizing influence over straight men and even if they did, how does that adaption pass itself on from the gay males?
> 
> Is the logic i present flawed in anyway?


Oh, geez, I sure hope you're just trolling/joking around, because I don't think I can take this sort of response seriously.


----------



## EJunior (Jan 12, 2009)

Hetero, except the fact I have a more androgynous face.


----------



## reefercheefer (Nov 3, 2009)

wonderfert said:


> As I've understood it, and as I stated, it would be competition amongst the offspring of the siblings, not the siblings themselves.
> 
> It could very well be a gene. It could be other factors. It may, and is more likely, to be both.
> 
> ...


I understand that the recessive gene could be carried by both gay and straight people, but i also understand that unless a gene benefits the population, that gene does not stay in the species long.

*As I've understood it, and as I stated, it would be competition amongst the offspring of the siblings, not the siblings themselves. *

Im sorry for misunderstanding you, i must have misread your post. And this makes more sense to me, than the way i had it. I have heard of crazier adaptions for competition against family members. (like outright killing).

I thank you for staying objective and logical during a debate that seems to touch on some personal grounds. You allowed me to learn from this because of your objectivity, and i really appreciate that.


----------



## wonderfert (Aug 17, 2010)

reefercheefer said:


> I understand that the recessive gene could be carried by both gay and straight people, but i also understand that unless a gene benefits the population, that gene does not stay in the species long.


Not necessarily true. I have a genetic disorder, or disease as my doctors tend to say, that is the result of a recessive gene. It serves no actual benefit to the population, and yet the gene is there. These types of disorders are more accurately called genetic mutations, and they tend to stick around, and if anything become more prolific across generations. 



reefercheefer said:


> I thank you for staying objective and logical during a debate that seems to touch on some personal grounds. You allowed me to learn from this because of your objectivity, and i really appreciate that.


You're quite welcome. It is a sensitive subject, but you didn't strike me as intending harm, and seemed more interested in getting information. I can respect a desire for information. roud:


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

reefercheefer said:


> well this is what happened in my head:
> Homosexuality is detrimental to procreation, and life succeeds by passing on its genetic code. If there is a gene that causes homosexuality then it would have died off very quickly or survived due to gays having heterosexual sex to fit within social norms. Evolution has designed men for women and women for men, if given a choice why would you want anything other than the tool that was designed for the job? Thats all the opposite sex is. They are your evolutionarily designed companions. It's not just a convenient accident that the opposite sex has a required ingredient to bring life into this world, its been designed to work that way. I think that being homosexual means working against the natural design, and one thing i learned from life is that most of the time things tend to work best when being used their intended purpose.
> 
> I dont think homosexuality is evil nor do i harbor any negative opinions towards people because they have decided to do something different with their private parts than i have. Please understand that I am not trying to rub anyone the wrong way, I am just trying to have a purely logical discussion about a hard topic.


I understand what you're saying. But this isn't a logical argument (even more so since you haven't explained why a sexual orientation would imply there's only choice involved, if gay people can't choose their sexuality neither can straight people so that argument would imply that straight people have a disorder too). 

You're saying because homosexuality isn't natural and doesn't result in offspring it must be a disorder? So does that mean women and men who can't have children have disorders too? 

"disorder:
a derangement or abnormality of function. Used as a euphemism when it is not certain that the abnormality is in fact a disease, or when public relations suggest that the word disease is likely to be inflammatory or upsetting."

"dis·or·der (ds-ôrdr)
n.
1. A lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion.
2. A breach of civic order or peace; a public disturbance.
3. An ailment that affects the function of mind or body: eating disorders and substance abuse.
tr.v. dis·or·dered, dis·or·der·ing, dis·or·ders
1. To throw into confusion or disarray.
2. To disturb the normal physical or mental health of; derange."

I don't think it would be considered a disorder because functionality is used in a broader sense. Not in our overall purpose. Not only that but calling it a disorder would be a bit strong and really wouldn't fit the picture, sexuality will do fine. Pedophilia isn't even a disorder.


----------



## reefercheefer (Nov 3, 2009)

I really am kinda done arguing this because i have voiced all my thoughts on this already, but you bring up the definition of disorder and i find that it fits homosexuals quite accurately.


"dis·or·der (ds-ôrdr)
n.
1. A lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion.

If hetero is the regular arrangement...

"disorder:
a derangement or abnormality of function. Used as a euphemism when it is not certain that the abnormality is in fact a disease, or when public relations suggest that the word disease is likely to be inflammatory or upsetting."

This is pretty close to how i was trying to describe it. Being unattracted to the opposite sex as a whole can be defined as an "abnormality of function"; evolution designed men and women to be attracted to each other.

I do not like definition wars, they are meaningless cause they tend to prove absolutely nothing.

K im done arguing about it, this argument isnt personal enough for me to keep rebutting people. 

Id like to hear stuff from the asexuals though... who the hell doesnt like to orgasm? :tongue:


----------



## Scientia (Oct 31, 2010)

I thought I was bisexual, but now I think I might be pansexual. (((;


----------



## Hiccups24-7 (Oct 17, 2009)

"If hetero is the regular arrangement..."

that is just you or someone else defining it, low and behold someone else defines it another way. But if you feel your way works best for you then go for it, just know you will get a few hairy eyeballs from some if you do express it as the regular or best etc.
For me there is no regular arrangement when it comes to sexual orientation, we are who we are as individuals and there is no right or wrong.. or better and worse etc. 
Procreation is not a must for everyone and it shouldn't create any form of hierarchy in peoples minds when viewing all orientations, there are no expectations in life on this topic only those that are man-made and again not for everyone. Certain groups and organisations may try to convince you that people that don't procreate are wrong in someway or another but really that is just an opinion that unfortunately some people take as _fact_.


----------



## reefercheefer (Nov 3, 2009)

Hiccups24-7 said:


> "If hetero is the regular arrangement..."
> 
> that is just you or someone else defining it, low and behold someone else defines it another way. But if you feel your way works best for you then go for it, just know you will get a few hairy eyeballs from some if you do express it as the regular or best etc.
> For me there is no regular arrangement when it comes to sexual orientation, we are who we are as individuals and there is no right or wrong.. or better and worse etc.
> Procreation is not a must for everyone and it shouldn't create any form of hierarchy in peoples minds when viewing all orientations, there are no expectations in life on this topic only those that are man-made and again not for everyone. Certain groups and organisations may try to convince you that people that don't procreate are wrong in someway or another but really that is just an opinion that unfortunately some people take as _fact_.


regular means typical and statisticly speaking the typical person is straight
agreed with on all other accounts. 

people were not supposed to take what i say as an attack at their belief system, they were supposed to prove me wrong. I know im not the only person that learns from a good argument... ever catch yourself playing devil's advocate just to look at a topic from another angle?


----------



## rowingineden (Jun 23, 2010)

Scientia said:


> I thought I was bisexual, but now I think I might be pansexual. (((;


*hides my cooking pans* I don't trust your winky face.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

nevermore said:


> When you say transgendered, what do you mean exactly? The surgical procedures associated with it have become so advanced nowadays it's often hard to tell. At least with MTF's. Most people would never know (and decent people wouldn't care). The job is often so well done the physical attraction becomes visceral. Or do you mean someone in the middle of transition?


Basically what rowingineden said. Transsexuals are people who feel that they were born in a body of the wrong sex, and whilst they are transgender, not all transgender people are transsexual.


----------



## Tiervexx (Nov 7, 2010)

I voted homosexual.

I think women can be VERY nice to look at and can be attracted to very "girly" guys (as well as masculine guys) but there are certain features that must be masculine for me to be strongly attracted to them.

1) shoulders must be visibly wider than hips. If this is not right it is a major turn off for me.

2) I'm very good a picking up on symmetries between the jaw, eyes, and cheek bones that immediately give someone away as a boy or girl to me, even if most people can't tell the difference. Those features must be male for me to be attracted to them although I don't mind if they otherwise look girly.

3) vagina's are scary... they just are 

There is one feature about women that I like more than men, how smooth their skin is. My best friend has the smoothest, most radiant skin you can imagine.





I have to make a quick comment on the debate about whether or not sexuality is a disorder...

If you define disorder as impairing your ability to function than of course it is not. I think everyone agrees with that.

If you define a disorder as something that natural selection would move against than you have to be very close minded to just dismiss the possibility that homosexuality is a disorder. The best research I'm aware of suggests the following:

1) We evolved to want to reproduce and that requires a mechanism to make you attracted to the opposite sex.

2) in our case that mechanism is very complicated and involves controlling hormone levels in the brain during early infancy.

3) Complex mechanisms are more likely to malfunction so sometimes the brain is exposed to hormones in a way that makes the brain more like the opposite sex.

4) I think it's possible that many people have some mixture of male and female components in their brain and it might even be pretty rare to have a perfectly male brain or vise versa. Varying degrees of this can cause a range of sexualities and sexual identities.

5) it's possible that some of the variation in brain structures is desirable (from an evolutionary standpoint) It means more diversity of ideas.


----------



## pretty.Odd (Oct 7, 2010)

I'm bi-sexual. I like girls more than I like guys because I think that the female form is beautiful and curvaceous and I generally have more exposure to girls than guys. I go to an all girl school so I don't really talk to guys much. Most of my sexual experinces have been with girls. That being said, I couldn't date one because my parents would kill me plus it's not acceptable in culture around me :/


----------



## bionic (Mar 29, 2010)

Asexual.... because I would rather fuck myself.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

I'm hetero, although I do have a mild fascination with chiseled men.


----------



## MR.ED (Nov 3, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> I'm hetero, although I do have a mild fascination with chiseled men.


Well join the club...i think were in good company. I've talked with several of my married buddies lately - and they have been increidbly honest. Admitting the same. In fact...

_"Declarations of love between men would imply an overtly sexual relationship. But it appears that such an inference was not drawn in early America. Rather, there was a space between two men in a committed friendship that seemed to remain private and out of bounds for public speculation. Declaring one’s love for another man was not necessarily seen as a declaration of sexual intent and certainly not of sexual identity.
Were early American men more comfortable with the erotic component in their feelings about each other than are contemporary men? It would seem so. However, my guess is that, the awareness of such an erotic component is nevertheless just as prevalent among contemporary American men. My own research (Tejirian, 2000) with men in their early twenties to early thirties has led me to infer that some degree of conscious erotic feeling toward their own sex probably characterizes a substantial percentage of American men (42% in my sample.) But the men who disclosed their feelings to me almost never discussed them openly with others because, as men who did not consider themselves to be gay, they had powerful social incentives to present a “pure” heterosexual persona to the external world. Nevertheless, when these feelings were directed towards a particular man, he was almost always a very good or best friend."_

also...

_""For the third time that day," he recalls "I noticed two men acting affectionately toward one another. I only realized my eyes had narrowed because, when I passed the third pair, they returned my gaze with irritation." Trying to analyze the cause of his reaction, he concluded, with astonishment, that "my problem wasn't prejudice. It was envy."

The source of the envy was the standard rejection of male intimacy that so many men are taught from an early age as a requirement of masculinity, and an unacknowledged sense of loss that makes gay mens' intimacy both "tempting and incriminating." That the reaction is anger isn't surprising: "as is often true of men, anger conceals our real feelings. . . . admitting such love is possible forces men to reevaluate the male 'contract."_

I post this only to say...we've unfortunately bought a lie that says men can't feel for other men. Sad that most men question themselves when they have deep, passionate even, love for another male.


----------



## she_sells_seashells (Nov 13, 2010)

I'm straight and I could probably only have an actual relationship with men but I'm open to experimenting with girls, though I have yet to get much out of it.


----------



## Jingo (Feb 2, 2010)

Asexual, heteromantic. Guys are nice and I get crushes, but I'd appreciate it if you kept your bodily fluids to yourself.


----------



## zyzzyva (Nov 19, 2010)

I like to think of my sexuality as fluid as it seems less based on gender and more on the individual at the time. Being a bit of an eejit I tend to find most people physically attractive, even though I can sit here and type that my preferences run towards bearded men and tall women there will be features I adore about most people I meet. I don't like to tie myself down to any particular orientation because when you do that people have certain expectations, or decide that it's impossible to lack gender preference and there must be some sort of dial leaning towards one or the other.

I like men, I like women. What can I say, i'm easy to please.


----------



## HoneyTrap (Nov 11, 2010)

Heterosexual with asexual tendencies. If that makes any sense.


----------



## PipRosi (Nov 18, 2010)

I hate labels


----------



## L'Empereur (Jun 7, 2010)

"Hetrosexual"


----------



## Cephalonimbus (Dec 6, 2010)

Heterosexual.

I do occasionally get man-crushes: wanting to spend a lot of time with that person, being fascinated by everything they say, basically thinking they're totally awesome and in some cases also appreciating their looks from an aesthetic point of view. But there's never been any sexual attraction involved.


----------



## Dreamer (Feb 5, 2010)

Heterosexual

Never heard of Bi-Curious and Asexual before. I used to think Asexual meant you fancied YOURSELF :tongue:


----------



## Strayfire (Jun 26, 2010)

Heterosexual ~ Unless I have a gender change I would not want to consider having a sexual relationship with a male.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

strayfire said:


> Heterosexual ~ Unless I have a gender change I would not want to consider having a sexual relationship with a male.


Even if you got a sex change, you are sexually attracted to women, so you would be gay in such a situation.


----------



## phoelomek (Nov 28, 2010)

It has been my general experience that men are great mindmates for me, but I connect better with women on a relationship level. I find I am slightly more sexually attracted to women over men -- but I am honestly open to either.


----------



## Strayfire (Jun 26, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Even if you got a sex change, you are sexually attracted to women, so you would be gay in such a situation.


If I had a sex change with my current mindset ie. not raised as a girl, I'd probably be bi.


----------



## prplchknz (Nov 30, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> I consider myself bicurious/pancurious. I'm probably a 2 on the scale rowingineden posted.


what's pancurious? you're sexually attracted to cookware or continents?


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

prplchknz said:


> what's pancurious? you're sexually attracted to cookware or continents?


Ha. ha. ha.

:tongue:

Seriously, it's like bisexual, but philosophically different. Bisexual is attracted to males and females, and pansexual is attracted to people regardless of gender. Unlike classical bisexuality, it would per se include transgendered people, intersexual people, and all other gender flavors as well as the standard male/female (hence pan, which obviously means "all"), but more than that it describes a person for whom gender is somewhat irrelevant.


----------



## AussieChick (Dec 27, 2010)

Australian,born and raised in a small town in Victoria,called Geelong.Part city,part country,i've always wanted to go to the states.If only i could afford to.Funny ,Dalien i like The Platters and David Bowie and everything else in between.


----------



## Lycrester (Dec 26, 2010)

I voted Asexual however I honestly don't know. Sometimes I "faint" over the sight of a beautiful man and other times I could care less about that same guy. I've never fallen for a woman before but I have developed occasional "girl crushes". As for sex,I've never had much of an urge for it.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

Ozziechick1966 said:


> Australian,born and raised in a small town in Victoria,called Geelong.Part city,part country,i've always wanted to go to the states.If only i could afford to.Funny ,Dalien i like The Platters and David Bowie and everything else in between.


I'd love to be tour guide for you, I'm born and rased california , been all over the states. 
I think you'd love the redwoods btw...


----------



## lib (Sep 18, 2010)

rowingineden said:


> I picked homosexual on your poll. On the Kinsey scale, I've been known to fluctuate from about 4-6, maybe, but right now I'm probably about a 5.


Hetero (0 on above scale)

As I think that out of the 16 types the INTJs have the most "masculine brain" I also assume, in part from reading posts on INTJ Forum (admittedly without statistics) that INTJ guys have the highest hetero percentage and INTJ gals have the lowest of the 16 MBTI types.


----------



## Mr strategy (Mar 28, 2012)

lib said:


> Hetero (0 on above scale)
> 
> As I think that out of the 16 types the INTJs have the most "masculine brain" I also assume, in part from reading posts on INTJ Forum (admittedly without statistics) that INTJ guys have the highest hetero percentage and INTJ gals have the lowest of the 16 MBTI types.


 Im INTJ and im bi. I don't see the point in just conforming to one sex if you have urges to sleep with both. :wink:


----------



## basementbugs (Apr 5, 2012)

I had to go with 'other'. The most accurate answer I can give is bi-romantic grey-asexual (aka, 'grey-a'). I wavered between choosing 'bisexual' and 'asexual'... but 'other' works better.


----------



## Impermanence (Apr 24, 2012)

Heterosexual.


----------



## 364unbirthdays (Apr 22, 2012)

I wish there was a good umbrella term for people who identify as bisexual/pansexual/omnisexual/whatever... It would make filling out polls like this much easier.

Huh. There's quiet a few more asexual people than I thought there'd be. I thought they only made 1% of the population, but perhaps the number is rising because of increasing visibility.


----------



## hackm (Apr 19, 2012)

Why is it so hard for some people to decide which genitals are their favorite?

No offense, I'm serious.


----------



## LQ9 (Jul 24, 2010)

"Bi-curious" is the only term I'm willing to commit to.




hackm said:


> Why is it so hard for some people to decide which genitals are their favorite?
> 
> No offense, I'm serious.


I think that's a reasonable question. Certainly asked myself the same thing before.
Possibilities:

- Appreciation of different types of genitals for different reasons
- Appreciation of a certain variety of genitals but not attraction to the whole person, or vice versa
- Lack of first-hand experience... how do you know what you like until you try it? Well, some people do, but not everybody.
- "If I'm straight/gay, why does this one person seem to be an exception?"

There are probably lots of other possible reasons...


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

I'm ENTP, bisexual, and know what I like about both sexes. Simple as that.

I'd say a lot of people have a hard time seeing how anyone would have perspectives other than their own.


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

I'm heterosexual. I have both male and female friends but I've only ever been attracted to the male ones.


----------



## Sulare (Mar 27, 2012)

Voted "other". Pansexual here.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

heterosexual/_demisexual_


----------



## Liontiger (Jun 2, 2009)

I chose homosexual, though I am aesthetically attracted (love that term) to men.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Bisexual and I fluctuate between a 1-2 on the Kinsey scale.


----------



## NingenExp (Apr 4, 2011)

I have never been in a relationship and I'm a virgin, but I find men sexually and physically attractive. Romantically, I have imagined myself with both men or women. Lately, I am thinking about men more than women. Mentally, anyone is possible to fall in love with. Anyone, man, woman or whatever it is between or outside the line can have an attractive personality and an admirable point of view, but not exactly one to consider it part of my sexuality. Sexuality is hard to describe because it is stronlgy linked with intimacy. We have intimacy with our friends, with our family, with our clans, groups and random people. In addition, I have caught myself three or four times in my life thinking about one friend sexually and all of them were men. So, I chose homosexual. I think I rather male friends and partners, but even that way, I consider myself a feminist and sometimes more than that. I'm radically feminist, insanely to the point of adoration instead of simple respect. I have been surrounded by women all my life. The most important persons in my life have been mostly women. I have considered women the way most closest to find God in real life. God, if it existed and if it were anthropomorphic, it should be definately a woman. In women, there is conception of life. The man was created after the woman. This woman imperfectly created needed an imperfect man to continue creating life. Well, I think too that the most powerful concepts of life and death themselves, are deeply ingrained into women. You get what I meant? I adore women and I desire men. This could go wrong and extremely embarassing, but it went honest. I'm pleased with this post. I just wanted to let you know. _That's why I'm still a virgin hahaha xD_ Voilá


----------



## Esotere (Jun 25, 2010)

Heterosexual. 1-2 on the Kinsey scale.


----------



## Bel Esprit (Aug 2, 2011)

I would always joke that I'm 80% gay and I always score a 5 on the kinsey scale, which is basically about an 80%. So 80% gay I shall be.


----------



## Phoenix0 (Mar 16, 2012)

Bi-Sexual. And the best part is... no one has to know ;D


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

It fluctuates between asexual and heterosexual, it really depends. Girls just don't do it for me. I like men. A LOT.


----------



## Baby Spidey (Jun 4, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> It fluctuates between asexual and heterosexual, it really depends. Girls just don't do it for me. I like men. A LOT.



I'm pretty confident that I could rock your world.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Queen Arienrhod said:


> I'm pretty confident that I could rock your world.


:wink:


----------



## Wikipedian (Jul 23, 2012)

I'm more Gray-A. I chose to not act upon my sexual urges when they arise.


----------



## bella123 (Aug 12, 2012)

Well there's a surprise :tongue:


----------



## TheBackwardsLegsMan (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm asexual. I have never been sexually attracted to someone, but I am attracted to to girls romantically. I didn't know how to vote so I just picked asexual.


----------



## mackenzye (Sep 19, 2012)

Big ole' ****. Kinsey 4-5.


----------



## jdbullet23 (Jan 25, 2012)

Homosexual, I'd say a straight up 6 on the scale. Good day.


----------



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

I can't decide whether I'm heterosexual or asexual. I'm attracted to men but sometimes they just suck.


----------



## The Nth Doctor (May 18, 2012)

fihe said:


> I can't decide whether I'm heterosexual or asexual. I'm attracted to men but sometimes they just suck.





> _het·er·o·sex·u·al_/ˌhetərōˈsekSHo͞oəl/
> Adjective:
> (of a person) Sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.


Well, there's your answer.


----------



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

@The Nth Doctor sorry, what I meant to say is that I've felt feelings for men as opposed to women, but I have no desire for a relationship or sexual activity, at least at this point in my life


----------



## hulia (Sep 13, 2012)

Asexual Biromantic... if that's what it's called exactly? Asexual bisexual, I guess. Either one of those. Both genders are adorable, but I lack the "wanting to bang" them urge. It's more like a "let's have coffee and cuddle on our Ikea furniture we just picked out together" feel.


----------



## Sea Anenome (Mar 11, 2011)

Heterosexual, but asexual in practice. I have always been attracted to guys but have never put any effort into pursuing a romantic relationship.


----------



## Gantz (Sep 24, 2012)

Technically i'm bisexual because I can be physically and emotionally attracted to both genders... But I like boys in both ways a lot more.


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

Hetero, but still virgin


----------



## NingenExp (Apr 4, 2011)

Homosexual and biromatic. However, my social role is more asexual. I'm virgin, btw.

_Only I know how homosexual I am _:blushed:


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

hetero-demisexual with a damn high sex drive. :wink:

(i voted 'other.')


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Hard core hetero.


----------



## scott (Feb 7, 2012)

Hetero... how boring haha


----------



## chindraj (Aug 25, 2012)

Pansexual. It wasn't up there so I voted for "other" roud:


----------



## hulia (Sep 13, 2012)

I voted other because I'm at a point right now where I'm severely losing attraction to men and I've always had an interest in women, but I wouldn't give up on guys completely. 

If someone on the street asked me my sexuality, I'd just say, "Bisexual but I prefer women".

So, practically a 4.5 on the Kinsey scale.


----------



## TriggerHappy923 (Dec 8, 2012)

Obsidean said:


> Lets do this


I wish I was asexual. Damnit, life would be much easier and my head would much more focused and clear.


----------



## phony (Nov 28, 2012)

I was going to vote bi-curious, but I think maybe I'm just a giant pervhornball. I wanna make out with_* all*_ the internet peoples<3


----------

