I don't think sexual attraction is binary

[nellodee]

Just brainstorming here, and these thoughts are certainly not set in stone...

I'm not attracted to men who identify as women (or haven't been yet, though admittedly, my exposure levels to this group are vastly different to that of male presenting males).

However, it's certainly the case that there are people who are exclusively attracted to both women and transmen. It's also the case that there are women who are exclusively attracted to both women and transwomen. There are probably also women who are attracted to anything BUT males. And every other combination possible, of course!

It strikes me as being fairly obvious that it's at least a quaternary, being attracted to:

same sex, same gender
same sex, other gender
other sex, same gender
other sex, other gender

I can understand that women who are attracted to women and transwomen want to call themselves lesbians, particularly if they subscribe to the view that twaw. And I can see they would feel that it was somewhat offensive to them to suggest that they are actually bisexual, given that usual meaning of this is to be attracted to male identifying males as well.

Unfortunately, the amount of combinations possible would mean we would need at least 50 new words even before we take NB into account. Given that there are four quadrants (at least, like I say NB would increase this even further), this gives 13 possible combinations of quadrant for each type of individual. Given TW are not going to want to sit in the M category, we have at least 4 different base individual categories. So, 4 x 13 words needed. Without including NB.

I'm quite curious as to how many people are single quadrant attracted vs being attracted to an entire axis. And is being "genitally" attracted any more common than being "gender" attracted?

Any thoughts?

I think that you don't need a word for all of these things.

I am occasionally sexually attracted to women of a certain type and within a certain age bracket. I'm not particularly interested in them as romantic partners, or even friends. On the other hand I'm very attracted to quite a wide variety of men of varying ages and characteristics all the time, and I also quite like them and enjoy living with a man.

I call myself a heterosexual, because really there is no need to be more specific about it. It's a word that's a tool, I do not need it to know who I am or receive some sort of validation from other people or tell me how I should live or what I should think.

Honestly, I think this is way too complicated and over-analysed. Why do we need to make definitive statements at all? Why do we need to fit ourselves into a named category?

Sexuality is fluid in all of us...and we can be deeply fascinated by someone without it necessarily being a sexual attraction.

I'm not even sure what being " genitally attracted" is, or " gender attracted"? Although I suspect that men are more motivated & focused on certain physical types & obvious physical 'clues' than most women

Don’t overthink this stuff

You fancy a guy or a woman

Simple

Boxes upon boxes upon boxes. Labels, labels everywhere but none of them are truly necessary.

I'm not attracted to anyone.

Simple.

Who cares what the labels are??

No shit.

I think we should just make up labels for every single type and combinations of attractions based on sex, looks, personality and kinks.

Then have an excuse to get offended when people don’t get the labels right (in our minds) .

I like the idea of making up loads of largely nonsensical labels, but they won’t catch on!

Boring old heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual work for almost everyone as no matter how many gender options Facebook offer, there are still only two sexes.

Unfortunately, these hypothetical women who are "exclusively attracted to women and transwomen" will be few and far between, virtually all women attracted to women and/or transwoman will be bisexual, so will also be attracted to men.

There are virtually no males who are homosexual, who fancy transmen, literally zero. If a man does find a transman attractive, they will be attracted to women almost all of the time.

Gender ideology is hell bent on redefining words and is weirdly obsessed with redefining "lesbian" for some reason

I’m sorry but I don’t even really understand what you are saying. Quadrants and axises? It looks like you’ve tried to break it down but I’m confused. Probably just dense though.

OP the problem with your way of analysing attraction is the assumption that gender is a thing that everyone experiences. It isn't. It certainly isn't something that can be immediately perceived in another person (if it was, misgendering wouldn't happen). Gender may be relevant to some people's attraction, but for many it has no relevance.

As far as sexualities go, there are 3. Same-sex attraction (homosexuality) opposite-sex attraction (heterosexuality) and attraction to both sexes (bisexuality).

Now, those people who are attracted to particular genders might want to find new words to describe their attraction. Why not? They can talk about their genderality, they could describe themselves as homogenderal/heterogenderal /bigenderal, or possibly mangenderal/womangenderal/bigenderal. As long as they don't expect the rest of us to redefine our sexuality in terms of gender.

sex always involves penises for me. Seeing as I don’t have one I guess I’m heterosexual. I’m not sure that I would agree with your idea of being attracted to gender though. I just don’t care whether a man wears a skirt or not. I’m attracted to some penis havers no matter how they are dressed or whether they think they’re a woman, man or a donkey. I’m only attracted to sex. Let’s be quite blunt here, unless you have some sort of fetish, once clothes come off gender ceases to be a part of the experience.

I like men. I’m most strongly attracted to gentle, not too huge somewhat “effeminate” men.

Occasionally I will feel “attraction” to women especially more androgynous / “masculine” women but I feel immediately disturbed at the idea of anything beyond kissing (touching genitals or breasts)

I do not need to call myself “pansexual” simply because I am not only attracted to GI Joe. I’m straight.

I'm still not wholly convinced that only sex comes into it. Do we think more heterosexual men would consider sex with a correspondingly passing transwoman or a transman? I think transwoman. I'm not a man though!

I can't answer for anyone else. But personally, I am heterosexual. I am female and I would not want to sleep with another female. Like FWRLurker I can't imagine getting intimate with a female.

Nope.

Same SEX attraction only - lesbian/gay
Opposite SEX attraction only - straight
Both same and opposite SEX attraction only - bi

Gender in this context is just a fancy way of saying 'I have a range of aesthetics I find sexy within my SEXual orientation'.

I think sexual attraction is binary because human sex is literally binary.
How attracted someone is to feminine and masculine traits doesn't change whether or not they are attracted to those traits on males and/or females.

Zero people are attracted to gender.
A male person in a dress is still a male. They therefore will not be attractive to a lesbian - take the clothes off what are you left with?
Any lesbian who claims to be attracted to a TW is a bisexual and that should be fine, I don't see why everyone suddenly pretends to be lesbians these days?
All the OP is doing is adding fuel to homophobia against lesbians.

I don't see the need. I'm bi and can be attracted to trans and GNC people. They still have a sex. I think pan is unnessecary and plays into tra hands.

Most people are only attracted to a small number of other people. They exclude the majority as potential partners.

So it is fine to say you are bi but only attracted to a small group of men and women. You’re not required to be attracted to everyone.

Genitally attracted makes no grammatical sense. We are however sexually attracted to other people’s genitals, unless you’re one of those creatures from Avatar.

I resent the term “genital attracted” - it comes across as unpleasant and derogatory. Very Brave New World/1984 trying to reinvent language.

Like anyone who is attracted to a normal healthy body and people who are happy with themselves (and has sexual boundaries and preferences based on that) is some kind of perverted freak? Other way round surely?

I don’t and would never fancy someone who has had and will need to have multiple strange invasive surgeries on their genitalia to solve a psychological issue. Same as I wouldn’t fancy a tattoo or piercing addict. Or someone with body issues (eating disorders etc) in other ways.

So does that make me a “normal genitalia fetishist”?

I'm still not wholly convinced that only sex comes into it.

Look, people are complicated. Sometimes someone who is 99% of the time attracted in one way will feel attracted in some other way. They may not feel the need to have a label to describe that unusual deviation from the usual. Sometimes people also may be in some sort of unusual situation that affects their behaviour. It seems that social expectations can also play a role in sexual expression to some extent and how people understand their own attraction.

The only reason we are so fixated on nailing all this down is identity politics.

OP I think you are confusing sexual orientations with sexual preferences.

Sexual orientations are simple. There are two sexes, and only two, so there are only four possible sexual orientations.

Heterosexual- exclusively attracted to the opposite sex
Homosexual- exclusively attracted to the same sex
Bisexual- attracted to both sexes
Asexual- attracted to neither sex

This is a matter of basic arithmetic. 2 x 2 = 4.

Sexual preferences are much more complicated. Other than asexual, within your orientation there will be vast swathes of people you are not attracted to, including entire groups, as well as particular attributes to which you are attracted.

A heterosexual man may not be attracted to any white women. That is a preference, he remains heterosexual by orientation.

A lesbian woman may not be attracted to XX trans people. That is a preference. She remains homosexual by orientation.

We all have both orientations and preferences. There is no point, however, in trying to come up with labels for the latter as sexual preferences are as unique and diverse as there are people on the planet. It serves no useful purpose to label them. In cases where preferences matter, mostly dating sites, it is easier all round to simply state what you are not interested in eg, a heterosexual woman might say 'men 35-50 only, no men under 5'6", no trans people'. In that very specific circumstance mention of preferences in the neagtive saves others wasting their time but otherwise? Doesn't matter.

I agree that this is conflating sexual orientation and preferences.

I consider sexual orientation to be that reflex of accepting or rejecting the same or opposite genitalia.

I would consider anybody who is able to willingly have sex with both types of genitalia, as bisexual.

Preferring those genitals to be owned by very feminine or very masculine people is preference.

The confusion is from people who are calling their bisexual preference for people who identify as women, to be an exclusive sexual orientation.. which it clearly isn't.