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 don't understand the reluctance to be bisexual. If you find yourself attracted to male and female bodies

Human beings are complex, and not all inter-personal attraction is sexual in nature. There can be quite intense platonic types of attraction too; where you are compelled and intrigued by someone in their entirety. Male or female. I'd say I was heterosexual, if I had to .......but I've experienced intense attractions to specific women in my life. Usually women I admire. It is not always about raw physical attraction.

Oh god. Does anyone actually care? Just get on and do your thing.

Oh god. Does anyone actually care? Just get on and do your thing

Why bother to comment just to be dismissive? You can always avoid a thread if it bores you.

I'm a woman and only interested in men of my own age or a bit older. I have zero interest in women.

Human beings are complex, and not all inter-personal attraction is sexual in nature.

Yes that's what good friendships are for. You don't need labels for those. There will be people we find super interesting and fun to be around with. Folk we admire and like their sense of style, their company etc. We cultivate platonic relationships with the people we like, but aren't necessarily interested in sexually.

Friendships have nothing to do with sexuality. Like other animals, humans have evolved to reproduce and therefore the vast majority will experience strong sexual urges and attraction and a desire to engage in sexual intimacy. Usually it's to the opposite sex because that's what leads to the possibility of procreation. A minority will be homosexual or bisexual. It's not complicated at all.

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!

A. In my experience the majority of men seem to say no to both.
B. Why do you care more about what men want than about what women want?

Honestly this reads like an attempt to complicate things that are actually quite simple. People are attracted to either men, women, or both. While in theory attraction only to people of one sex plus people of the other sex who have made attempts to resemble the first group of people is possible, it seems sufficiently uncommon for it not to make much sense for us to attempt to reframe how human sexuality is generally seen to accommodate that small number of people.

I think it's uselessly self-absorbed to label onesself in that kind of way when in reality there are only two sexes. If a man dresses up in sexualized women's clothing convincingly, then a heterosexual man may initially feel more attraction to that dressed up man than he might to a woman in flannels with a scruffy beard from taking testosterone. But true fact: heterosexual men do not want penises on their sex partners. That's not how any of this works, my friend.

I think the level of self absorption needed to spend this much time thinking about who you fancy is staggering.

Shag who you fancy. Past the age of about 25, I find very few people care that much about such things.

I've always been picky. Only attracted to men with caring characters, only letting a man who loved me enough to have children with me into my bed (after experiencing the utter shit of men who wanted my body for casual sex).
No-one else. I don't believe in gender.

Since my husband passed away I am not attracted to anyone. I guess that's asexual, and it suits me fine.

One issue I hadn't realised around saying you are bisexual is that apparently (according to an 18 year old lesbian I spoke to) there's an assumption you are then extremely promiscuous.

It was interesting hearing her perspective. She said a very large number of girls were lesbians at her school (a third).

Interestingly she said the boys weren't out as gay due to toxic masculinity and being bi meant you were viewed as 'easy.'

I wondered if the fact that the boys were being ott masculine plus the fact that it was then extra challenging to be bi (misogyny especially directed then at the girls) meant that perhaps more girls than might in other areas were experimenting with being lesbian as a teen as a result, along side some clearly very proud and strong lesbians as she and her partner are.