• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

⫸Trans and LGBTQIA+ Discussion⫷

Status
Not open for further replies.
that tells me, right there, that you don't even bother reading stuff that's provided to you.

willful ignorance is dangerous.

alasdair
I do read it, and all Iv ever seen is either partial data to paint a incomplete picture, or just an article with no data or anything, which is just as much bullshit as not posting any source, in fact I’d say it’s worse since your trying to trick someone into thinking your right
 
You guys do realize I can literally make a site called “nationalsocialstudiesgroup” and grab or make up any data I want then post a lengthy article saying why what I think is correct.,..you do understand that right ?
 
just for fun I’m gonna pay to make a website and post an article with data and graphs and everything, the whole Shabang, that would be proof technically right ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If sticking your dick in a vaginal is gay now, there is no gay anymore.

Trans movement is deleting the traditional definitions of woman and man and gay and straight and replacing them with something undefined that clearly doesn't make sense.

If genitals are irrelevant, you're not gay/lesbian... you're bisexual/pansexual.

Gay men don't eat pussy and lesbians dont suck cock last time I checked.

Pretending the trans thing makes sense is like pretending that 3=4. Everything ceases to make sense. All numbers lose meaning.

@arrall

I dont get the point of your photos.

1. Most trans people dont look like that. The vast majority of trans people are obviously trans people.

2. It doesnt matter if someone does a convincing impersonation of the opposite gender. A penis is a penis. Tits dont change that. A six pack doesn't change it either.
True the trans movement wants to erase or get rid of bisexuality as well, and claims that we bisexuals are 'transphobic' and must identify as pansexual-which is just another term for being bisexual that people use to avoid just saying they are bisexual, or how if someone bisexual, gay, or lesbian, or heterosexual does not want to have sex with or date someone trans that it is transphobia.
Pansplaining+2.jpg


I wouldn't have sex or date any of the trans people he/she/they posted. They all look completely crazy, fake, have too much plastic surgery, are obviously not the sex or gender they want to pretend that taking hormones, having elective cosmetic medically unnecessary surgery somehow magically makes them.
 
Last edited:
You guys don’t substantiate shit, all you guys ever do is post an article from some left wing media site, never even question how/where the data came from
real quotes and actual video of people saying the thing isn't 'some left wing media' article, you're so full of shit
 
You guys do realize I can literally make a site called “nationalsocialstudiesgroup” and grab or make up any data I want then post a lengthy article saying why what I think is correct.,..you do understand that right ?

I don't know exactly but I'm pretty much betting that no-one has posted stuff from genuinely fake sites.
 
I'm demisexual
Not a thing. You can't be half-sexual. Either you feel sexual attraction and enjoy sex, or you don't. True asexuality where someone literally has no libido and no desire for sex is extremely rare. Everyone else is a sexual being. 'demi-sexual' is a trendy made-up nonsense word that doesn't mean anything.
So you only want sex occasionally, or only want it with someone you have emotions for? Those used to be personal preferences, not every single one of which requires a stupid microlabel.
Every guy I've been with who has a big bush always has a faint smell of crotch rot, no matter if he has recently showered or not. I can't deal with it.
Er, if he showers regularly and hasn't got a skin condition, all you should smell is a nice whiff of male musk. Part of what pubes do is trap pubic sweat and the associated pheromones. Absolutely turns me on, it's one of the sexiest smells ever.
And if a guy is uncut, having a full bush amplifies smegma smell which is an instant end to sex for me.
You definitely shouldn't smell smegma because the only way you would is if it accumulates behind the foreskin, meaning he doesn't clean properly (ie pull the foreskin back when washing). Also uncut is better because it gives you more to play with, plus it too serves a physical function. Whoever came up with the idea that that was there only to be snipped off. Must be a predominantly American thing, they all seem to have those weird flayed-looking dicks....
 
If sticking your dick in a vaginal is gay now, there is no gay anymore.
So when a trans person gets a sex change operation, then what happens by your definition?
Is it still heterosexual to suck cock as a man just because the person with a penis was born with XX chromosomes?
Are genitals the only thing making it heterosexual for a cisgender man to have sex with a transgender man by your standards?

There’s more to attraction and sexuality than what’s between a person’s legs.
I’ve never understood the right’s obsession with genitals in this debate.
Maybe insecurity around the size of their penises?
It’s gotten to the point where Republican state legislatures in some states want to allow school officials to inspect children’s genitals before allowing them to participate in school sports.

1. Most trans people dont look like that. The vast majority of trans people are obviously trans people
Those photos were to demonstrate that trans people CAN and often do look identical to cis people of their gender despite being born as the opposite sex.
Not that all trans people will automatically look like that.

But it also depends on how far they are into transitioning and what sort of medical treatment they have been able to get.
Most trans people I’ve met who are 5+ years into transitioning DO look like that.
A trans male friend of mine has almost as much hair on his legs as I have on my entire body.
I don’t think that focusing on “passing” or looking like that is a useful or productive place to focus the argument though, so let’s move on.

I don’t understand where and why you draw the line with genitals.
If a trans man puts on a strap on and fucks you with it, is it still straight?
What if he has had a sex change operation and it’s an actual penis?
Is it still heterosexual in your eyes for a man to get fucked with a penis just because the person whom the penis belongs to has the wrong chromosomes?
 
I don't know exactly but I'm pretty much betting that no-one has posted stuff from genuinely fake sites.
The only person here who has posted anything fake is @PriestTheyCalledHim, who is now also ignoring the responses of anyone who debunks his arguments.
His Twitter poll that was used as evidence that trans people are somehow biphobic was posted by an alt-right troll account, and the reduxx.info site is pretty obviously run entirely by far-right ideologues.
 
Not a thing.
So you only want sex occasionally, or only want it with someone you have emotions for? Those used to be personal preferences, not every single one of which requires a stupid microlabel.
Either it isn’t a thing or you just don’t think that it deserves a label.
Which one is it, Fixx?

This is like if somebody were to say that having sex with men “used to be a personal preference and shouldn’t require a stupid label.”
It’s a term to describe a person’s preferences
What’s the difference to you if somebody else has a label that they can use to describe their preferences with a single word?
 
There’s more to attraction and sexuality than what’s between a person’s legs.
I’ve never understood the right’s obsession with genitals in this debate.
Maybe insecurity around the size of their penises?
Genitals have been a pretty decent proxy for gender among humans for probably hundreds of thousands of years or more. Think about this: it's not as if genitals are unimportant to those transpeople who choose to go through multiple surgeries to create them. It's not about the right or left, it's not that simplistic. It's older and deeper than anything that can be changed simply because it's now politically correct to do so.

I appreciate your comments but i think we need to return to a more reasonable level of dialogue here.
 
Genitals have been a pretty decent proxy for gender among humans for probably hundreds of thousands of years or more. Think about this: it's not as if genitals are unimportant to those transpeople who choose to go through multiple surgeries to create them. It's not about the right or left, it's not that simplistic. It's older and deeper than anything that can be changed simply because it's now politically correct to do so.

I appreciate your comments but i think we need to return to a more reasonable level of dialogue here.
See the rest of my post.
I don’t see why the line is drawn there, nor what would change in bird’s eyes if the genitals were.
If a cisgender man has sex with a trans man pre-op, then it is heterosexual in bird’s eyes.
If bird’s viewpoint rests solely on genitals, then doing the same thing post-op would probably be homosexual in his viewpoint.
If he disagrees, then one can presume that he actually holds this opinion based on some distinction in his mind between biological sex and gender that goes beyond genitalia.
 
arrall said:
There’s more to attraction and sexuality than what’s between a person’s legs.
I’ve never understood the right’s obsession with genitals in this debate.
Maybe insecurity around the size of their penises?

You're introducing genitals into the debate as much as I am by showing photos of trans men and saying that you're straight if you're attracted to them, because the obvious unavoidable next step of that discussion is genitals.

You seem to be suggesting - with those photos - that clothes and surgery and make-up / hairstyle is more significant than genitals when it comes to sexuality. I am on the other side of the coin. Genitals are far more relevant.

This comes back (again) to gender and sex being muddied.

There is attraction in terms of gender expression (make up, hair, etc) and there's attraction in terms of biological sex. The latter is where traditional understanding of sexuality comes from. Some of us are born attracted to men. Some of us are born attracted to women.

If gender and sex aren't the same thing, let's talk about them separately. You can't have it both ways.

Gender attraction (is there a term for that?) is a thing. Some gay guys don't like feminine/camp guys, no matter how hot they are. They like their "men to be men". Some lesbians like butch girls. Some don't.

Genitals are unavoidably at the centre of this topic because we're talking about sex.

Those images of trans women may well be attractive to most straight guys here (I don't know, maybe not) but do they continue to appeal to them after these "girls" take their dick out? Or, they hear them speak and the illusion shatters when they realize they don't sound like a woman. They sound like a trans woman.

The idea that it is possible for a straight man to have a long-term relationship with a trans woman who still - has a full set of cock and balls - is beyond ludicrous. People wouldn't have accepted it as satire years ago, but now it is mainstream opinion. It's quite disturbing to witness, honestly.

I'm not obsessed with genitals. It's such a bullshit move to say that to me when we're discussing whether or not it's possible for 100% straight men to love sucking cocks. That's the topic at hand. I'm not obsessed. I'm not being crude. I'm just not beating around the bush... This is what we're talking about.

If you're suggesting we need to redefined homosexuality, then say that. Let's not pretend that being a gay man has always included cunnilingus.

Let's not pretend it is a fact all of a sudden that lots of women are anatomically male and it makes perfect sense to conduct experiments on children and generally play God with human gender.

arrall said:
Those photos were to demonstrate that trans people CAN and often do look identical to cis people of their gender despite being born as the opposite sex.
Not that all trans people will automatically look like that.

But they don't pass when they talk off their pants, so that whole point falls apart.

I have high cheekbones. I used to have long hair, before it all fell out. I could have passed for female if I spent a bit of time doing make-up and shaved my legs, etc... Doesn't mean sucking my dick is a heterosexual act. If I'm a man, nothing makes that a heterosexual act. It is by definition homosexual.

Post-op trans woman with a vagina that looks identical to a real vagina (never seen that, from what I've seen they usually look like a mess): maybe that's not gay? I don't see why it is, but it's still not 100% straight either because people who identify as 100% straight mostly wouldn't want to have sex with someone like that and - if we're going to embrace people being who they are - you can't rightly tell them how to define their own identity.

But it also depends on how far they are into transitioning and what sort of medical treatment they have been able to get.
Most trans people I’ve met who are 5+ years into transitioning DO look like that.
A trans male friend of mine has almost as much hair on his legs as I have on my entire body.
I don’t think that focusing on “passing” or looking like that is a useful or productive place to focus the argument though, so let’s move on.

Trans men tend to look more convincing than trans women, but there is almost always something off. I can usually tell. When I suspect people are trans, they almost always turn out to be trans... One of the images you posted is a trans male porn star because he's so convincing. I originally assumed he was a guy who had A+ bottom surgery and continued to dress/present as male.

I don’t understand where and why you draw the line with genitals.

See, you're going back to genitals again. Like I said, neither of us are obsessed. That's just the topic.

If a trans man puts on a strap on and fucks you with it, is it still straight?

I don't really consider pegging to be particularly gay/straight. I understand how other people do. That's just not how I view it. Same thing with handjobs/blowjobs/etc. These are more bisexual/pansexual acts in terms of how I think about sex. (I don't personally see the problem with bisexuality being replaced with pansexuality. I don't know the difference.)

I don't really care about labels. They're not precious to me. They're more like the best we can do. They're adequate as reference points, but experience varies so much and our definitions don't always align either.

The act of having a phallus being inserted up your ass (particularly if the strap-on is shaped like a penis) is obviously a bit gay, even if a woman is doing it, because your simulating gay anal sex.
What if he has had a sex change operation and it’s an actual penis?

I don't view it as an actual penis. It is a fleshy strap-on.

Is it still heterosexual in your eyes for a man to get fucked with a penis just because the person whom the penis belongs to has the wrong chromosomes?

I honestly don't have the answers to all your questions worked out, because (despite you thinking I'm obsessed) I don't spend a lot of time devoted to this sort of thing.

We have different opinions of what a penis is. You're redefining terms.

A post-op trans man's "penis" is something. I see how fleshy strap-on might be offensive. I wasn't trying to be offensive. Just trying to illustrate my point. My natural style is to communicate without filters and I don't see why I should have to bend to neurotypical expectations my whole life. Not saying you suggested otherwise. Just in a weird headspace, I guess.

It's something, but it isn't a penis.

A trans-penis, perhaps?

I don't see them as the same thing - most people don't - so there needs to be different terms, in order to avoid confusion in discussions such as these.

Heaven forbid we talk about genitals too much and we all go to hell.
 
Either it isn’t a thing or you just don’t think that it deserves a label.
Which one is it, Fixx?
It isn't a thing because human beings are either sexual or very occasionally not.

Everyone understands some people will fuck anything with a pulse at the drop of a hat, others require an emotional connection, some wanna do it three times a day, others only every couple months. None of that is some special form of sexuality. It's the same nonsense as people suddenly making up several words for all the possible gradations of bisexuality. You're mainly attracted to blokes but will fuck a woman occasionally? Sometimes you're more into one sex than the other and it varies? Congrats, if you're attracted to both in any capacity you're still a bisexual. Whatever happened to 'labels don't matter'? Nowadays people can't seem to resist sticking as many on themselves as humanly possible and it's ridiculous.
 
It isn't a thing because human beings are either sexual or very occasionally not.
No, sexuality is a spectrum.
As you seem to demonstrate below, when you discuss how even bisexual people can have varying attractions to men and women.
Everyone understands some people will fuck anything with a pulse at the drop of a hat, others require an emotional connection, some wanna do it three times a day, others only every couple months. None of that is some special form of sexuality. It's the same nonsense as people suddenly making up several words for all the possible gradations of bisexuality. You're mainly attracted to blokes but will fuck a woman occasionally? Sometimes you're more into one sex than the other and it varies? Congrats, if you're attracted to both in any capacity you're still a bisexual. Whatever happened to 'labels don't matter'? Nowadays people can't seem to resist sticking as many on themselves as humanly possible and it's ridiculous.
If there is asexual, demisexual, and allosexual (the asexual equivalent to heterosexuality that most people fall into), what's the difference to you?
Are you really going to lose sleep at night because there is one extra label that exists for those who fall in between asexuality and allosexuality?
A pretty significant amount of people seem to require an emotional connection and only become sexually attracted to people under certain circumstances, rather than being able to be sexually attracted to people in most cases or not at all.
This is like saying that people should either choose heterosexuality or homosexuality and there should be no extra labels for those who fall in between.
It's ridiculous.

You don't have to understand it, but I don't see why you can't respect a single extra label existing for a category that you have already repeatedly conceded to be distinct from both asexuality and allosexuality.
 
So when a trans person gets a sex change operation, then what happens by your definition?
Is it still heterosexual to suck cock as a man just because the person with a penis was born with XX chromosomes?
Are genitals the only thing making it heterosexual for a cisgender man to have sex with a transgender man by your standards?

There’s more to attraction and sexuality than what’s between a person’s legs.
I’ve never understood the right’s obsession with genitals in this debate.
Maybe insecurity around the size of their penises?
It’s gotten to the point where Republican state legislatures in some states want to allow school officials to inspect children’s genitals before allowing them to participate in school sports.


Those photos were to demonstrate that trans people CAN and often do look identical to cis people of their gender despite being born as the opposite sex.
Not that all trans people will automatically look like that.

But it also depends on how far they are into transitioning and what sort of medical treatment they have been able to get.
Most trans people I’ve met who are 5+ years into transitioning DO look like that.
A trans male friend of mine has almost as much hair on his legs as I have on my entire body.
I don’t think that focusing on “passing” or looking like that is a useful or productive place to focus the argument though, so let’s move on.

I don’t understand where and why you draw the line with genitals.
If a trans man puts on a strap on and fucks you with it, is it still straight?
What if he has had a sex change operation and it’s an actual penis?
Is it still heterosexual in your eyes for a man to get fucked with a penis just because the person whom the penis belongs to has the wrong chromosomes?
Mutilating your body doesn’t change your chromosomes. It’s science
 
I'm not obsessed with genitals. It's such a bullshit move to say that to me when we're discussing whether or not it's possible for 100% straight men to love sucking cocks. That's the topic at hand. I'm not obsessed. I'm not being crude. I'm just not beating around the bush... This is what we're talking about.
I never suggested that you were obsessed.
As a bisexual, I think that you differ from most other conservative men in your reasonings for holding this viewpoint.
The Republican politicians who wanted to examine the genitals of children are absolutely obsessed with genitals, and that is who is was referring to.
I think we can both agree that neither of us share that obsession.
that clothes and surgery and make-up / hairstyle is more significant than genitals when it comes to sexuality.
I don't think that genitals supersede the combination of mannerisms, body hair, body type, musculature, gender, and everything else.
I also think that it is an odd line to draw when a significant portion of trans people have had sex changes.
Let's not pretend it is a fact all of a sudden that lots of women are anatomically male
I don't see that as something being "all of a sudden".
Transgender people have existed for as long as other people have, and there are documented cases going back several centuries.
it makes perfect sense to conduct experiments on children and generally play God with human gender.
I don't think that anybody here is suggesting we do that.
I also would prefer to keep the discussions of children separate from the discussion of adult genitalia, as I believe that those two things shouldn't mix.
Post-op trans woman with a vagina that looks identical to a real vagina (never seen that, from what I've seen they usually look like a mess): maybe that's not gay? I don't see why it is, but it's still not 100% straight either because people who identify as 100% straight mostly wouldn't want to have sex with someone like that and - if we're going to embrace people being who they are - you can't rightly tell them how to define their own identity.
My viewpoint is that a man sticking his dick into a woman's vagina is heterosexual, yes.
I'm not going to debate if these vaginas look a bit different or not, I can't say that I've spent time studying photos of them to have any knowledge on that front.
But even if a woman's vagina suddenly looks a little different, does that make it not straight to have sex with it?
What if it is an intersex person who was then assigned female at birth and chose to identify that way?
If the vagina *looks* slightly different to you, is it suddenly gay for you to stick your dick in it by your standards?

I really don't understand where or why you are drawing this line.
You seem very set on it being about biological sex rather than gender, or even genitalia - "maybe that's not gay?".
But you aren't really explaining why.

One of the images you posted is a trans male porn star because he's so convincing.
So you do concede that some trans people can look identical to cis people, which was my point here.
 
If a cisgender man has sex with a trans man pre-op, then it is heterosexual in bird’s eyes.

Yep. Putting a penis into a vagina is - at the very least - mostly heterosexual.

If bird’s viewpoint rests solely on genitals

For most of my life I've been a heteroromantic bisexual but now I'm open to having romantic relationships with men and (weirdly enough) trans people. God knows how the latter would work considering my decidedly "unwoke" opinions about trans people.

Aside from those two categories of label (which sexuality, if any, is romantic for you) / (your sexuality)... there's also gender expression.

I wouldn't be able to have a relationship with a very feminine gay guy, I don't think. I'm not 100% sure if I'd be able to do it with a trans woman, either. I prefer women to not wear make-up... For the most part, I like men to be hairy and masculine.

I'm not a heteroromantic bisexual anymore. I never was. But, I mean, that's not the label that I think best fits me now. I'm a panromantic bisexual/pansexual (seriously can't work out the difference aside from trans stuff but the term existed before it's association with the trans movement or at least that was my understanding/assumption).

then doing the same thing post-op would probably be homosexual in his viewpoint.

Having your girlfriend strap on a realistic looking rubber penis and fuck you in the ass with it while you close your eyes and imagine a man fucking you... Is that gay?

Yeah, that's pretty gay.

I never said everything is black and white. *insert meme

If he disagrees, then one can presume that he actually holds this opinion based on some distinction in his mind between biological sex and gender that goes beyond genitalia.

There is no gender, really. Gender is a social construct. There are inherent traits that differ between men and women (as there are between males and females in most species on the planet) but that's not part of the gender construct. Biological gender expression and social gender expression are different things. Those aren't official terms in the woke handbook. I just made them up.

What I mean is: women haven't always worn make-up.

How men and women dress has changed dramatically over time.

Girls used to wear blue and boys used to wear pink because pink was considered a manly colour.

This is why the trans movement is all about fashion. It's superficial.

I find it weird that some gay guys I know wouldn't fuck someone who is hot AF simply because they're trans so they're wearing "women's clothes".

Their skin is still the same. Their body is the same. Their dick is the same. By all accounts, a stunning man in top physical shape. Good tan. Shaved. nice big uncut cock. But, they have something lacy on and that ruins the whole thing?

I get not wanting to marry a trans woman or be in a relationship with them, but - especially if you're bisexual - you shouldn't turn down a good thing for the sake of some silly principle.

A nice dick is a nice dick.
 
Mutilating your body doesn’t change your chromosomes. It’s science
The existence of intersex people, Klinefelter syndrome, and other conditions is enough on its own to make the chromosome argument fall apart.
Attraction isn't based on chromosomes, though the image of you DNA-testing partners before you take them out on a date or have sex with them is quite amusing.
Having your girlfriend strap on a realistic looking rubber penis and fuck you in the ass with it while you close your eyes and imagine a man fucking you... Is that gay?

Yeah, that's pretty gay.
Agreed.
Therefore, getting fucked by a trans man - whether it is with a strapon, a post-op penis, or whatever - is also gay.
You are having a man (probably a pretty masculine looking one) fuck you with a penis.
Whether or not that penis is made out of flesh (that they were born with or not) or silicone is irrelevant in my eyes.
seriously can't work out the difference aside from trans stuff but the term existed before it's association with the trans movement or at least that was my understanding/assumption).
My understanding is that pansexuality means you are attracted to all sexes and genders, gender & sex are irrelevant in your attraction to people, etc.
Whereas bisexuality just means that you are attracted to men, women, and possibly non-binary people as well.
Pansexuality may very well fit me better, I'm not sure.
I just choose to go by bi because I honestly like the sound of it better and don't really care either way.
What I mean is: women haven't always worn make-up.

How men and women dress has changed dramatically over time.

Girls used to wear blue and boys used to wear pink because pink was considered a manly colour.

This is why the trans movement is all about fashion. It's superficial.
You had me until the last point.
Trans people have different mannerisms and personalities, though I suppose you could say the same about LGBQ+ people.
Pretty much all of the trans men I know tend to act far more like men than women.
Pretty much all of the trans women I know tend to act far more like women than men.
Most trans people in Western countries (and even many outside of those countries) these days are on HRT.
Many have also had many surgeries, though the genitalia surgeries tend to be the least common as they tend to be extremely expensive and have complications.
Being trans isn't about fashion.
It's about the person on the inside, and also often involves massive changes to hormonal levels, bodies, and even genitalia.
The main difference with most trans adults in the West today is the body they were born into, and sometimes what's between their legs.
That's it.
I find it weird that some gay guys I know wouldn't fuck someone who is hot AF simply because they're trans so they're wearing "women's clothes".

Their skin is still the same. Their body is the same. Their dick is the same. By all accounts, a stunning man in top physical shape. Good tan. Shaved. nice big uncut cock. But, they have something lacy on and that ruins the whole thing?
See my point above.

I think that we can find some common ground here (Far more than I could with someone like like Priest or Dropperz, for example), but I think that we absolutely disagree on a lot of this.
Whether that is due to generational differences, life experiences, a simple difference of opinion - probably some combination of all of those.
But I will say that I do appreciate that your posts on this topic are honest and are rooted in genuine feelings & opinions.
You aren't coming at this from some brainwashed political angle. You haven't been consumed by ideology.
You are someone who, as a bisexual/pansexual/etc., is inherently invested into discussing LGBTQ+ issues just as I am.
So I do appreciate that regardless of our differences, we are able to have an actual conversation here where I know that you are arguing in good faith.
I wish that more conversations in this forum could begin from a place like that.
 
No, sexuality is a spectrum.
As you seem to demonstrate below, when you discuss how even bisexual people can have varying attractions to men and women.

If there is asexual, demisexual, and allosexual (the asexual equivalent to heterosexuality that most people fall into), what's the difference to you?
Are you really going to lose sleep at night because there is one extra label that exists for those who fall in between asexuality and allosexuality?
A pretty significant amount of people seem to require an emotional connection and only become sexually attracted to people under certain circumstances, rather than being able to be sexually attracted to people in most cases or not at all.
This is like saying that people should either choose heterosexuality or homosexuality and there should be no extra labels for those who fall in between.
It's ridiculous.

You don't have to understand it, but I don't see why you can't respect a single extra label existing for a category that you have already repeatedly conceded to be distinct from both asexuality and allosexuality.
It. Is. Just. UNNECESSARY.

And it's quite straightforward.
Exclusively attracted to the opposite sex -? You're straight.
Exclusively attracted to the same sex -? You're gay.
Like a bit of both -? You're bi, never mind how you lean in your attraction, very few bisexuals are absolutely 50/50.
Don't wanna fuck at all -? You're asexual.

There's zero need for all the hemi/demi/semi shit and making it all sound soooo complicated and involved, when it really bloody isn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top