Superstraight

[Xanthangum]

Superstraight is trending on twitter. No I hadn't either.

Its a subcategory of straight that means that straight people can now be included in the lgbtqi+ categories. Or something. Hooray! Fight for my superstraight rights too Stonewall!. Or something

twitter.com/supa_str8/status/1368003836863000576?s=20

@Highwind But several of those things on your list are to do with gender not sex. Which means gender must play a role in sexuality.

Would a superstraight woman fancy someone like Blaire White?

Perhaps some will, but surely that’s down to individuals. Why would you expect the posters on this thread to know?

I don't think that's how sexual attraction works though. It's quite possible to completely oppose someone's politics but still reluctantly find them attractive, even if you might not ever consider doing anything about it.

Possible does not equal universally true. Although it's interesting to see some of the root ideas exposed that led to this absurdity that women were being discriminatory for not dispensing sex to all applicants.

If I find what I know of a person's views to be repugnant and in complete opposition to my own, then no physical arousal is happening.

Every single person I have ever shagged has been someone whose physical appearance I found attractive and whose personality I found attractive.

I keep telling incels on the internet to take some responsibility for being unlikable instead of coming up with madder and madder theories based on misunderstood wolf-pack behaviour. It's advice other people could do with taking.

"Is it the dress you find unattractive?"
No.
I like dresses.
I absolutely love a man in a kilt.
I dont like men with long hair.
Or men with lots of make up.
Or men with delusions that make them believe that a dress long hair and make up can turn them into a woman.
Thats reductive and sexist and I try to avoid getting into relationships with sexists.
Really not sure why any of us should have to explain our sexualities to you jj.

I believe this is the horseshoe theory I keep hearing about in action Potholes

I actually might well find a transwoman physically attractive, in theory. I certainly might have done 30 odd years ago when I was happily fancying Gene Loves Jezebel. If you disregard gender & just look at 'pretty male person wearing makeup & frills', then yup, that would have worked for me.

However, I find that sexual attraction is a fickle beast. Discovering that someone was very religious once sent it careering off over the horizon - Big Nope, don't care that he was gorgeous.

If someone was preoccupied with & reified gender, that would have the same effect: so no, I might momentarily feel attracted to a transwoman, but I couldn't sustain it. Different world views, not compatible, no point fancying them, game over.

Tbh that's probably as well - I don't imagine a transwoman would be comfortable with a female partner who saw their sex rather than their gender, so I suspect they'd be quite creeped out if I or another straight woman were leching at them.

& obviously I would want transwomen to be able to happily find compatible partners with as little as possible 'noise' from fundamentally incompatible admirers, just as I wish the same for anyone else.

Possible does not equal universally true.

Not universally true perhaps but certainly pretty widespread. Widespread enough that society hasn't felt the need to consider dislike of certain political views to the point you wouldn't fancy someone to be a kind of sexual identity unlike LGB.

@Highwind

When you date, you filter out those who are not compatible and not attractive to you, the first wave of expulsion usually stems from biological sex, then it could be height/weight/interests/fertility etc etc.

So, I automatically filter out women from my dating needs, no matter how masculine she could make herself look or how interesting as a person she was.

So as a Superstraight woman, I wouldn’t exclude Paris or Monroe from my dating pool on the basis of their sex, they would pass that first hurdle if you will. Then comes the next wave of filtering... Which would remove them from my dating pool on the basis of physical attraction.

Came here to say this, but more clumsily!

Which means gender must play a role in sexuality.

I'm not attracted to people with right wing nationalist views. Doesn't mean politics plays a role in sexuality. Attraction yes, sexuality no.

You're confusing the two. But you seem to be easily confused.

As well as being irrelevant it's not a good idea to answer specifically what you find attractive or unattractive about named individuals such as White Lee's or Bergdorf.

We have been dealt enough deletions and strikes this week.

But several of those things on your list are to do with gender not sex. Which means gender must play a role in sexuality.

This deliberately misses the point about what sexual orientation is. For a heterosexual woman, the fundamental deal-breaker is whether a potential sexual partner is a man. The gender stuff hovers around that which means there can be other deal-breakers even if the target sex is present.

For a heterosexual woman whose sexual orientation does not shift, no matter what gender stuff is going on, she won't be wanting a woman as a sexual partner.

Everyone knows this even people who pretend they don't.

Misogyny of any shade kills desire stone-dead. For some reason I never want to get naked with someone who doesn't respect me and see me as a 3-dimensional person. Very puzzling, eh?

I came out as superstraight yesterday and boy, has it been fun on Twitter but omg there are so many ppl who want to invalidate me! Bigots.

But now I am confused bc my superstraightness is totally valid, but when it come to someone like Monroe Bergdof (sp?), I am totally turned off by their obnoxious personality before I even have to ask if they have the kind of genitals that I would be attracted to. So now I feel conflicted.

I also don’t see why the posters on this thread are being expected to know what a hypothetical individual woman may or may not find attractive.

Somebody asked why some women don't find obese older men attractive, so only natural that in response to that a question would be along the lines of "I don't know, why don't men find older obese women attractive?

One might conclude it’s yet another derail.

How is it a derail if a poster responds to a question brought up by a "GC?"
Or is it one of those rhetorical ones nobody's actually supposed to respond to?
It seems like derail can mean hearing anything else apart from the usual on here.

A dull man kills it stone dead for me

No sense of humour man as well

A man who eats with his mouth open and makes horrid slurpy noises

A man who is a poor snogger tongue like a washing machine

Why would that be a sexual identity?
Its just one of thousands of things about a person that could turn you off them.
Im straight, that doesnt mean I fancy every male person.
In fact I feel attraction very very rarely, and I meet a lot of people.
I dont analyse why I dont want to fuck every man I meet, I just dont.
On the rare occasions I do feel attracted to someone, I still might not fuck them, if they're not attracted to me, or I learn something about them that I dont like that turns the attraction off.

But the humourless man would be the worst one. I think

Posters aren’t having a discussion

They are just constantly being asked questions and out of some misguided sense of politeness are answering them

This isn’t something FWR came up with, its just as new to us as every poster on this thread and reddit and twitter and wherever else it may be

If there are honest questions they should be directed at to the relevant people....oh no wait, you can’t because he is a 16 year old child whose been getting death threats

[quote jj1968]@Highwind But several of those things on your list are to do with gender not sex. Which means gender must play a role in sexuality.[/quote]
No it plays a part in attraction.

No heterosexual woman fancies every single man they see. It doesn't make them any less heterosexual.

Yeah same for me. Josie

Am a super straight. Doesn’t mean I fancy all men

No heterosexual woman fancies every single man they see. It doesn't make them any less heterosexual

Yes it's interesting that jj's arguments are based on this assumption of theirs. Almost incel-like isn't it?

Now I am just thinking about the film with Gwen P and Jack Black (I may have just made his name up) where he sees people for their personality, but I can't remember what it was called.

I find any assumption of sexual attraction or refusal to accept a lack of sexual attraction extremely creepy.

Yep. You have to fancy someone

Then if they don’t fancy you so be it