Labels are for soup.

[paper person]

"yeah labels. Who need 'em? Tear 'em off, throw them away. Who cares what size the shirt is? Live a little. throw it on. Maybe its a medium maybe its an extra large. you'll have extra room" -- julie bender mall employee

OK. Besides that wierd last part, label do need to be thrown away. Sure they help devide certain groups of people and maybe they help people confirm they're idenity, but personly they scare the hell out of me. I feel that if I chose one I'll be bound to it forever. It's so much easier just saying "I have both interst and guys and girls" rather than using the B-word (i really dont like saying it) Why do labels like these ( or for any group of people) need to exist? Won't we be more excepting ofeveryone if we did not divide ourselves?

[bookworm43]

hear, hear! labels really don't matter- i think we use them on this site just so we don't have to post the same question, why are you on here in the first place? in all seriousness, labels really don't matter- you like who you like, date who you date, and have fun doing it. end of story.

[Messed Up]

As we say in the ghetto, brap brap...mad respect!

[Owen]

I must be the only GLBTTQQAAetc person who likes labels. I don't think labels are themselves problematic; they only become an issue when people try to conform to their label, rather than trying to make their label conform to them. And if you can't find a label that conforms to your identity? Then make one up like I did (more on that later). I think a lot of the problem with labels comes not from the labels themselves, but from the attitudes people take towards them. And who says labels divide us? We all still unite under the GLBTTQQAAetc banner; the labels just describe what brings us to this larger group. They only divide us if we let them.

As far as fear of their permanence, there's no reason to fear being bound to your label forever; you can totally change it if you don't think it's adequate anymore. I myself have changed my labels quite a few times in my life as I discovered more about myself. I used to think I was heterocurious, then bisexual, then homocurious, then I finally figured out that I was homosexual, before later amending it to homosexual panromantic. I also used to consider myself a cis-gendered male, but recent gender dysphoria caused me to adopt the term "pomogendered", a term I coined myself based on the term "pomosexual", a term used to describe people who reject labels for their sexual orientation. I suppose it's ironic that I'm defending labels when I have given my gender identity a label that means I refuse to label it, but there you go.

Personally, I like labels because of their ability to capture complex concepts in simple words and make describing our sexual orientation, romantic orientation, and gender identity easier. I like being able to say, "I am a homosexual panromantic physically-male pomo-gendered individual," rather than needing to say, "I'm someone who is sexually attracted to men but can be romantically attracted to anyone, and though I'm physically a male, I prefer to not to label my gender identity." Not only that, but I also find the sheer variety of labels out there fascinating, as they show just how varied the human experience can be.

Originally Posted by bookworm43

in all seriousness, labels really don't matter- you like who you like, date who you date, and have fun doing it. end of story.

I completely agree with this sentiment, but rather than rejecting labels because of it, I feel more comfortable using them because they really don't mean that much.

[paper person]

I'm sorry Gamer am I , but what??
you just used so many diferent labels my head is spinning.
Ys i see how the longer explanation of your prefernces is a bit more complicated than the former, but the former also uses terms i am unfamilair with. so they both seem a bit confusing to me. Idealy wouldnt it be easier to say " I am paper perso and I like what I like" end of story.
maybe i was being a bit harsh on labels. it certainly lets people ground them sleves as well as find other with simmialr qualities.
personally i dont like untiting with any one. it feels like i have resrtictions then although people united for a cause is a powerful thing
could you please elaborate on what you said about labels conforming to their owners as apose to the other way around. I would like to know more about how that works.
Lastly maybe I dont like labels because as far as labels on sexuality go im still not confertable with myself and dont want to consider all the potentiall neagtives of assosiating with certain titles. I want to just say " I'm paper person" but im not sure who that is. Maybe im just a paranoid person who needs to get over them selves but thats just me.
I apologize if any of this came across as offencive.

[Owen]

I'm sorry Gamer am I , but what??
you just used so many diferent labels my head is spinning.

My apologies. Let me go through a clarify.
heterocurious: primarily attracted to the opposite sex, but occasionally attracted to the same sex (so Kinsey 1 or 2)
bisexual: attracted to men and women (Kinsey 2, 3, or 4)
homocurious: primarily attracted to the same sex, but occasionally attracted to the opposite sex (Kinsey 4 or 5)
homosexual: attracted to the same sex (Kinsey 6)
panromantic: romantically attracted to anyone regardless of gender*
cis-gendered: someone whose gender identity matches their physical sex (i.e. their birthgender). Anyone who has no issues with their gender is cis-gendered.
pomosexual: used to describe someone who prefers not to label their sexual orientation

*A word on romantic orientation: We're all familiar with sexual orientation, which covers which sexes we are sexually attracted to, but there is also romantic orientation, which covers which sexes we can feel romantically attracted to. In other words, your sexual orientation covers who turns you on; your romantic orientation covers whom you can fall in love with. The two are often the same for any given person (in other words, someone who is homosexual is often homoromantic), so many people don't give much thought to their romantic orientations. But there are exceptions: I, for example, have fallen in love with women in the past in spite of not being sexually attracted to them, which is why I don't count myself as homoromantic (the prefixes mean the same thing as they do for sexual orientations). Now, pansexual describes someone who can be sexually attracted to anyone, including men, women, post-op transsexuals, hermaphrodites, etc, because "pan-" means "all". As such, someone who is panromantic can fall in love with anyone regardless of their sex. (While I've never fallen in love with someone outside of the gender binary, I doubt I wouldn't be able to due solely to their gender.

Idealy wouldnt it be easier to say " I am paper perso and I like what I like" end of story.

Perhaps, but such a statement would make me ask, "And what do you like?" Then either we're back to the convenience issue or we're questioning the necessity of answering the question "What do you like?", which is a whole 'nother can of worms I won't touch now.

could you please elaborate on what you said about labels conforming to their owners as apose to the other way around. I would like to know more about how that works.

Certainly. Let's look at my situation when I was feeling dysphoria about my gender identity as a cis-gendered male. In this situation, if I had tried to conform to my label, it means that I would have tried to alter my perception of myself so that I could continue to call myself a cis-gendered male, in spite of the fact that I felt that I wasn't. If I had tried to conform my label to me (which I did) , it means I would have tried to find a different label that does accurately describe how I see myself. In other words:
Conforming to my label: "I am a cis-gendered male, so I'm going to try to get over this gender dysphoria so that I can continue to call myself that."
Conforming my label to me: "I am feeling gender dysphoria and no longer wholly and completely identify as male, so I'm going to pick a new label for myself that better describes who I am."
Clearly, the second one is the better choice.

Lastly maybe I dont like labels because as far as labels on sexuality go im still not confertable with myself and dont want to consider all the potentiall neagtives of assosiating with certain titles. I want to just say " I'm paper person" but im not sure who that is. Maybe im just a paranoid person who needs to get over them selves but thats just me.

Sounds like you might be pomosexual, then. Don't worry; as far as I know, it doesn't have any stigma associated with it, largely because it isn't widely known.

I apologize if any of this came across as offencive.

Not at all; I was actually worried about the same thing myself.

[paper person]

Woah. Way to break down my responce. Most appreciated. Like really so much detail. thanks so much.
Howeber im still a bit confused. at least as far as your ideas go
you identify yourself as a complex label that (as far as i think) not most people understand. So in the end you still have to give the over long version.
Once again thanks for the very detailed responce and i apologize for making u elaborate so much, for i am very curious about all this stuff works ( i guess im just being a needy newb srry)

[thedreamwatch]

Originally Posted by Gamer am I

I must be the only GLBTTQQAAetc person who likes labels. I don't think labels are themselves problematic; they only become an issue when people try to conform to their label, rather than trying to make their label conform to them. And if you can't find a label that conforms to your identity? Then make one up like I did (more on that later). I think a lot of the problem with labels comes not from the labels themselves, but from the attitudes people take towards them. And who says labels divide us? We all still unite under the GLBTTQQAAetc banner; the labels just describe what brings us to this larger group. They only divide us if we let them.

As far as fear of their permanence, there's no reason to fear being bound to your label forever; you can totally change it if you don't think it's adequate anymore. I myself have changed my labels quite a few times in my life as I discovered more about myself. I used to think I was heterocurious, then bisexual, then homocurious, then I finally figured out that I was homosexual, before later amending it to homosexual panromantic. I also used to consider myself a cis-gendered male, but recent gender dysphoria caused me to adopt the term "pomogendered", a term I coined myself based on the term "pomosexual", a term used to describe people who reject labels for their sexual orientation. I suppose it's ironic that I'm defending labels when I have given my gender identity a label that means I refuse to label it, but there you go.

Personally, I like labels because of their ability to capture complex concepts in simple words and make describing our sexual orientation, romantic orientation, and gender identity easier. I like being able to say, "I am a homosexual panromantic physically-male pomo-gendered individual," rather than needing to say, "I'm someone who is sexually attracted to men but can be romantically attracted to anyone, and though I'm physically a male, I prefer to not to label my gender identity." Not only that, but I also find the sheer variety of labels out there fascinating, as they show just how varied the human experience can be.

I completely agree with this sentiment, but rather than rejecting labels because of it, I feel more comfortable using them because they really don't mean that much.

I agree with every word in this post.

I think that labels are just words. We use words for everything, but we don't make the thing conform to the word unless it's with people. So maybe we should change the way we look at language about ourselves instead of trying to eliminate labels altogether. Labels are supposed to be roughly descriptive, not stifling.

[Owen]

Originally Posted by thedreamwatch

So maybe we should change the way we look at language about ourselves instead of trying to eliminate labels altogether. Labels are supposed to be roughly descriptive, not stifling.

This, this, this. Language affects the way we view the world in ways many of us aren't fully aware of, and we can all benefit from becoming a bit more aware of and proactive about that fact.

Howeber im still a bit confused. at least as far as your ideas go
you identify yourself as a complex label that (as far as i think) not most people understand. So in the end you still have to give the over long version.

True. I guess it's just easier for me somehow, in a way I can't really put words to. It might be because the existence of a label affirms that this is not an uncommon thing (at the very least, it's common enough that someone picked up on it and named it), and that I'm not that abnormal. Also, maybe by using the labels, we can spread awareness of them to the point that we can use them without needing to give the long version.

Once again thanks for the very detailed responce and i apologize for making u elaborate so much, for i am very curious about all this stuff works ( i guess im just being a needy newb srry)

You're very welcome, and don't worry about it; we were all new at some point, and your enthusiasm to learn is the most important thing.

[paper person]

Maybe i'm against labels because people seem to use them to help feel more "grounded" and i feel anything but. I guess ill stick with "confused"
thanks thedreamwitch. your comment is very helpful

[thedreamwatch]

Originally Posted by paper person

Maybe i'm against labels because people seem to use them to help feel more "grounded" and i feel anything but. I guess ill stick with "confused"
thanks thedreamwitch. your comment is very helpful

No problem

And yeah, I had a big beef with labels when I was trying to figure out how I felt and how to explain it when I did figure it out.

[Just Passing]

I have no problem with being labelled. I'm gay, what else are people supposed to say? That guy who likes men? Doesn't have the right ring to it. Gamer Am I said it best and I agree with everything he said.

[Chandra]

Originally Posted by thedreamwatch

Labels are supposed to be roughly descriptive, not stifling.

Unfortunately, they often are stifling. And it would be great if we could make everyone change the way they look at language, but I don't think that's likely to happen anytime soon, so in the meantime I choose not to have a label.

Some people like 'em, some don't. That is all.

[FJ Cruiser]

It's an observation of mine that those who shun labels, whether it's sexuality, genres of music, whatever, tend to be those who are afraid to commit to what they know they like. I agree with what was said above. Labels aren't exactly the Berlin Wall. They describe an aspect or a tendency, they don't define you. However, I think they can be useful to set up reasonable boundaries.

[Meropspusillus]

Frankly, whether or not you like labels society is going to label you anyways. Might as well give yourself a label you like. Labels might not be the be-all-end-all, but they're useful in society.

[fiddledeedee]

If I said that I liked guys and girls, people would probably just go, "So you're bi.". At which point I could either say yes or that I didn't like lables. With the former, then why didn't I just say so? With the latter I just seem fussy, in my opinion. I think of lables as covering a wide range of things, e.g. if I have a bunch of things then I might lable them as "blue objects", but that is a very broad category. Not a good analogy, but I'm tired XD. As it is, lables just make everything that bit simpler.