What do you think of all of the different labels on romantic/sexual orientation

I also feel conflicted about this topic. On the one hand, its great that people have more ways of defining themselves. On the other hand, I feel like sometimes we start over-defining ourselves and putting ourselves into boxes when we don't need to.

 

It's too hard for me to follow, sexuality is something that (hopefully) isn't the only part of me that's outstanding or noticeable. I'd just use gay, and that's pretty much it, others can use what they want but they've gotta understand that the majority of the population out there don't know about it and therefore we cannot expect others to know all the terminology... It's like asking a business student to remember Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species of a certain creature by heart.

 

I don't even mess with them; too many labels to count.

 

Well speaking for us bricks, I don't really understand romance that well, so it wouldn't be fair for me to cast any judgement on the terms, except that there is no justification in the most part for any of them. They are just stereotypes so far as I can see and thus broadly harmful.

 

I mostly call myself bi with a possibly exclusive romantic preference for guys.

As it is now, I aesthetically prefer guys, sexually prefer girls and romantically prefer guys. I don't have any label that perfectly describes that, and I don't mind, I don't care.

To people who understand I call myself pansexual though; I'd sleep with an enby.
And I'm unsure if I could date an enby or another female, so I add "mostly heteroromantic".

Bisexual usually works for me.

That said, I have no quarrel with anyone for exercising their right to self-identification, as long as they aren't hurting anybody. And demisexuals, pansexuals, etc. aren't hurting anybody. So if anyone has a problem with them they have some serious questioning of their own moral judgment to do.

 

I find micro-labeling to be confusing and unnecessary.

Do you like the same gender? Homosexual. Do you like the same and other genders? Bisexual. Do you like the opposite gender? Heterosexual. No romantic/sexual interest at all? Asexual. The purpose of sexuality is to tell people which gender you prefer, so (for example) I don't consider "demisexual" a sexuality, per se- don't get me wrong, only being attracted to people you have an emotional bond with is definitely a real phenomenon. I'm not saying that it isn't real/ trying to hate on people who use the label; I just believe that calling it a sexuality is inaccurate. The main problem with calling it a sexuality is that it doesn't indicate the gender of the aforementioned people you know. It's an auxiliary term at best.

I can't stop you from using what labels you want, but IMO it's best to be clear and concise. There's little point in using a label if you have to explain it.

 

I think there is too many labels to be honest makes it hard to keep up and gets confusing I just like the main labels easier to remember

 

Too many labels. In my opinion there's really no need to have them all- some, not all, are very unnecessary in my opinion (unless anyone can convince me otherwise). Like, really, there's a reason we get so many offensive jokes thrown at our faces. Too many labels.
I can understand it when it comes to gender (which I'm still having a hard time trying to follow).

 

My take on it is this. If you want to identify as something more specific than the standard LGB, then go for it. But, you should probably only use your super-specific label around LGBT+ people who understand to a degree what you're talking about. If you're around straight people, they aren't going to have a flying clue what you're talking about if your say demisexual aromantic pansexual cyborg. For people who struggle to even comprehend bisexual, it's far less complicated to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Even easier, you could just identify as one of the three and elaborate as needed.

 

I must admit I do struggle to see the need for all these classifications. I accept that straight, hi and gay doesn't quite cut the mustard, But a lot of them do seem to stem from not allowing a certain amount of variety in a class. For instance if someone likes men and women but one more I see no need for a separation , your still bi, but with a preference. It's just needless complication to me.

 

Exactly! Thank you. I'm a bisexual who, for the most part, prefers men. For a while I actually used to call myself gay but that attraction to women was always there. You don't have to smush yourself into a label or make something else up to account for the scraps.

That'd be like saying that a certain buddy cop movie belongs to a new genre because there's three guys in the cop car instead of just two.

 

Precisely... And to give context, I am basically the other way round... I am primarily attracted to women, but men can and do turn my head.But we are both bisexuals. And I can fully relate to you calling yourself gay , seeing as I spent so many years calling myself straight.

Love the analogy... The one I had in mind was that I am a shorter girl than me with brown hair and hazel eyes .....sexual that's my wife by the way.

 

I have yet to hear the same logic, from the same critics of in-depth labelling of sexual orientation, extended to language in general.

We describe things specifically in complex ways because there are specific, complex things to describe. We don't abolish the distinction between the concepts of existentialism, nihilism and absurdism, despite their common reliance on similar concepts. We don't try to slash down the number of highly specific terms used in biology or chemistry. Psychology's seemingly endless list of syndromes and the increasing pile of sociological theories aren't often criticised for being given different, distinct terms.

Likewise, the growing understanding of sexual orientation and gender is not something to criticise; it's a valid area of study whose terms and definitions must be studied and expanded according to what we find.

 

9If it's helpful then I agree. Thus from a scientific angle this is fine. From the point of view of social interaction it's fine too except where this is causing people to define themselves as people in accordance with which. Such is not helpful in general. The key points are utility, context and social impact.

Eta: let's take demisexual. Basically every woman, bar one and most men I know would fit into that category.they are mostly straight and hapilly involved in their own monogamous relationships. Not one would go out seeking one night stands etc, even if they were single, pretty much every girl I know would see that as something very wrong. The point is that the term itself is rather nebulous it doesn't really say anything except about someone's moral code and the way such effects the way they react to the world.

Ok I am aware that this does run a little deeper with those who identify in this way, but to me this is still more a matter of psychology rather than sexuality, there is a scale here. I judge not anyone for it but I don't see why it needs a special official label.

---------- Post added 29th Jul 2015 at 04:59 AM ----------

Putting this into context, if I don't don't like someone I am not going to be sexually attracted to them, and that is true for most people. so what we are seeing is a variant on this psychological trait. Whereas sexuality is something far deeper. It affects your psychology obviously but it's not something that varies according to personal connection.

 

This is a matter of classification I agree btw. But from my point of view it weakens the definition of sexuality to include vague sub categories. Rather than keep it as simple as possible. Sexuality is about the gender of person you are attracted to. If that is a basically your own you are homosexual, if it's in any reasonable sense both you are bisexual and if you are attracted exclusively to all intents and purposes to the opposite gender you are heterosexual... With appropriate extentions for transsexuals.

 

I think that in general, labels are helpful. But I do agree only to certain people who understand them, or else it sounds like you're speaking some alien tongue to people who haven't heard certain ones and you have to explain them anyways.

In regards to the person describing themselves using labels, I think it's a great way to figure out who you are and find other people like you, HOWEVER it is not necessary to slap a label on yourself. There are so many people who feel like no label really perfectly describes their sexuality and most people have a lot to say about it, and just simple it down to the label.

All I'm saying I guess is labels are great if you want them, but no one needs to go through and label themselves. You do you, you don't need a label if you don't want a label.

 

They're all fine. I'm okay with learning new things about the LGBTQ+ community. However, i think that some of the labels are unnecessary, there are a few I've seen that fit say.. Bisexual or Asexual and someone would create a totally different label for it which wouldn't make sense. With that being said, people feel how they feel and their thoughts and feelings aren't any less valid than the next person's.