The LGBT Gamer Community Thread.


Gamer Life General Discussion

7,851 to 7,900 of 17,688 << first < prev | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | next > last >>

I guess this is a fine time to bring up that the more time passes the more I have begun to realize that I think I'm maybe some form of pansexual not bi-sexual.

It's kinda hard to explain and I'm not sure if even pansexual is the right label, as it were, but it seems like the more I learn about myself the more I realize what a person looks like has almost no bearing on whether I find them sexy or not.

To me it seems much more about the energy I feel from the person and whether I like them or not.

I remember in school I had a history teacher who looked like a ninety year old Walter White that I really admired for his intellect and insight and who had a funny and clever way of exchanging with the class.

I found that dude sexy as hell and would have even if he had gangrene on his face.

Not sure what label to put to that. "Attracted to personality and energy-sexual"?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Yuugasa wrote:

I guess this is a fine time to bring up that the more time passes the more I have begun to realize that I think I'm maybe some form of pansexual not bi-sexual.

It's kinda hard to explain and I'm not sure if even pansexual is the right label, as it were, but it seems like the more I learn about myself the more I realize what a person looks like has almost no bearing on whether I find them sexy or not.

To me it seems much more about the energy I feel from the person and whether I like them or not.

I remember in school I had a history teacher who looked like a ninety year old Walter White that I really admired for his intellect and insight and who had a funny and clever way of exchanging with the class.

I found that dude sexy as hell and would have even if he had gangrene on his face.

Not sure what label to put to that. "Attracted to personality and energy-sexual"?

I know there's a term for that, but it's not coming to me...


Kalindlara wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

I guess this is a fine time to bring up that the more time passes the more I have begun to realize that I think I'm maybe some form of pansexual not bi-sexual.

It's kinda hard to explain and I'm not sure if even pansexual is the right label, as it were, but it seems like the more I learn about myself the more I realize what a person looks like has almost no bearing on whether I find them sexy or not.

To me it seems much more about the energy I feel from the person and whether I like them or not.

I remember in school I had a history teacher who looked like a ninety year old Walter White that I really admired for his intellect and insight and who had a funny and clever way of exchanging with the class.

I found that dude sexy as hell and would have even if he had gangrene on his face.

Not sure what label to put to that. "Attracted to personality and energy-sexual"?

I know there's a term for that, but it's not coming to me...

Demisexual?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

I guess this is a fine time to bring up that the more time passes the more I have begun to realize that I think I'm maybe some form of pansexual not bi-sexual.

It's kinda hard to explain and I'm not sure if even pansexual is the right label, as it were, but it seems like the more I learn about myself the more I realize what a person looks like has almost no bearing on whether I find them sexy or not.

To me it seems much more about the energy I feel from the person and whether I like them or not.

I remember in school I had a history teacher who looked like a ninety year old Walter White that I really admired for his intellect and insight and who had a funny and clever way of exchanging with the class.

I found that dude sexy as hell and would have even if he had gangrene on his face.

Not sure what label to put to that. "Attracted to personality and energy-sexual"?

I know there's a term for that, but it's not coming to me...
Demisexual?

I was thinking that, but I looked it up and decided that it might be too weak a sell. It's probably the right term though.

Thank you, though. ^_^


That doesn't really fit. Demisexual, as I understand it, means that one only finds individuals of whichever gender is appropriate to that person sexually attractive after a pronounced period of acquaintanceship. If that sounds confusing it might help to think of it as being mostly asexual with the exception of those who the individual has known for some time. It can even be used as a modifier of the more common romantic and sexual orientations such as demihomosexual, demibiromantic, and so forth.

The closest thing to what Yuugasa described that I can think of is sapiosexual; sexual attraction to intelligence which, I'll state one more time, doesn't exactly fit. I feel like there has to be a term for what Yuugasa shared about herself, but I'm afraid I just can't figure out the name for it right now.


Welcome Caitlyn Jenner

Liberty's Edge

HenshinFanatic wrote:
That doesn't really fit. Demisexual, as I understand it, means that one only finds individuals of whichever gender is appropriate to that person sexually attractive after a pronounced period of acquaintanceship. If that sounds confusing it might help to think of it as being mostly asexual with the exception of those who the individual has known for some time. It can even be used as a modifier of the more common romantic and sexual orientations such as demihomosexual, demibiromantic, and so forth.

That's more or less accurate as I understand it as well, and the best lead-up I'm gonna get to mention a particular thing about myself. :)

Previously, both elsewhere on these boards and in this thread, I've referred to myself as straight. That's both true and misleading. I am a man, and I am attracted exclusively to women...but I'm also only attracted to women I both know and like as people quite a bit (as well as finding physically attractive). Which makes me demisexual (I suppose demiheterosexual if you want to be specific). I've been aware of this for a while (a year or two, I believe), and have mentioned it to just about everyone in my real life, but the time never seemed quite right to mention it online.

So...yeah, there's that.


Huh, weird.

After looking into it awhile I can't find any sexual orientation label that seems to fit how I feel.


I just like girls.


Bisexual is definitely the right label for me. I am attracted to either very feminine or very masculine and nothing in between. I can appreciate if an androgynous person is attractive, but I'm just not actually physically attracted to that. I imagine it's how straight people feel about someone of their same gender.


lynora wrote:
Bisexual is definitely the right label for me. I am attracted to either very feminine or very masculine and nothing in between. I can appreciate if an androgynous person is attractive, but I'm just not actually physically attracted to that. I imagine it's how straight people feel about someone of their same gender.

Where as I tend to be attracted to the feminine spectrum of both men and women stretching well into androgynous, with a few masculine outliers here and there.

Ever feel like bisexual may, in fact, be too broad a category?


Albatoonoe wrote:
lynora wrote:
Bisexual is definitely the right label for me. I am attracted to either very feminine or very masculine and nothing in between. I can appreciate if an androgynous person is attractive, but I'm just not actually physically attracted to that. I imagine it's how straight people feel about someone of their same gender.

Where as I tend to be attracted to the feminine spectrum of both men and women stretching well into androgynous, with a few masculine outliers here and there.

Ever feel like bisexual may, in fact, be too broad a category?

I don't know if it's too broad, but I think it is in many ways the most confusing category.

It can mean a lot of things, and I think that sometimes people just don't want to put that much thought into it.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Previously, both elsewhere on these boards and in this thread, I've referred to myself as straight. That's both true and misleading. I am a man, and I am attracted exclusively to women...but I'm also only attracted to women I both know and like as people quite a bit (as well as finding physically attractive). Which makes me demisexual (I suppose demiheterosexual if you want to be specific). I've been aware of this for a while (a year or two, I believe), and have mentioned it to just about everyone in my real life, but the time never seemed quite right to mention it online.

That makes you very atypical for a heterosexual man. Less so for heterosexual women.


Joynt Jezebel wrote:
That makes you very atypical for a heterosexual man. Less so for heterosexual women.

I think (if I'm not mistaken) he's identified himself as demisexual, which part of the asexual spectrum.


Yaaay! New Zinnia Jones video!.

Liberty's Edge

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
That makes you very atypical for a heterosexual man. Less so for heterosexual women.

I'm aware. :)

That said, I'm not sure what I feel is precisely the same as what those women feel. I think that most people of both genders, even those who prefer a committed relationship, are capable of being attracted to at least some people they see for the first time, even if doing something about it never occurs to them.

That doesn't happen to me. I can acknowledge someone as objectively attractive, but before I know them? Not even the faintest spark of actual attraction.

Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
I think (if I'm not mistaken) he's identified himself as demisexual, which part of the asexual spectrum.

That's correct. I do also accept being called heterosexual, though...I feel it's close enough for government work in my case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Demisexual? Pardon but that's a new one for me.

Liberty's Edge

Icyshadow wrote:
Demisexual? Pardon but that's a new one for me.

Definition and description found here.

And don't worry about not having heard of it, it's a tricky thing to notice given that, from the outside it's often indistinguishable from someone who's just shy about relationships or not interested in casual sex or relationships.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
I just like girls.

Same.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I am being obtuse or cynical, but it seems that the message the media is sending today isn't "trans women are beautiful" but is "it's ok to be a trans woman, as long as you are beautiful."

Our society's continual shaming of women's bodies that do not conform to beauty standards is sad.

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed a series of posts. If you'd like to start a discussion about the media's portrayal of different genders, or offer criticism of various news outlets in general, please take it to another thread, thanks!

Dark Archive

This is really the most frustrating thing for me about the increased trans visibility we've started to see in the past couple of years in media. It's all rooted in whether or not the person a) "passes" and b) conforms to near impossible standards of beauty thrust upon women that are rooted in the usual mess of sexism/heterosexism/race/cissexism/etc.

Worse, the ability of a trans person to "pass" is so often tied up in privilege (read: money). So now it just isn't a question of appearance, but of socio-economic status in a time when few health insurance plans cover even basic hormone therapy much less surgical procedures.

I'm really glad Caitlyn was able to be herself. I'm even more pleased that one of our first trans icons in media is a woman of color (Laverne). That's huge and a subversion of the usual white standards of beauty. But it's still stuck in this idea that there is a specific way one must look to be acknowledged and valued as a female.

*I use pass in quotation marks because that's often such an arbitrary set of standards. Someone's gender is more than just another person's idea of how it should be presented. It's also rooted in their comfort, not the person in question.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
That makes you very atypical for a heterosexual man. Less so for heterosexual women.

I'm aware. :)

That said, I'm not sure what I feel is precisely the same as what those women feel. I think that most people of both genders, even those who prefer a committed relationship, are capable of being attracted to at least some people they see for the first time, even if doing something about it never occurs to them.

That doesn't happen to me. I can acknowledge someone as objectively attractive, but before I know them? Not even the faintest spark of actual attraction.

Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
I think (if I'm not mistaken) he's identified himself as demisexual, which part of the asexual spectrum.
That's correct. I do also accept being called heterosexual, though...I feel it's close enough for government work in my case.

There is certainly a great deal of variation in heterosexual women.

The term demisexual is new to me. I think it differs from what I have called a romantic asexual, who wants romantic relationships but is disinterested in sex as such. But I am no expert, so I could have it wrong.

And can I ask a question its fine if you don't answer. Is the sexual attraction... urgent? I am not as horny as when I was younger, nobody is, but seeing a really attractive female [even one I don't know at all] get a pretty immediate and hard to ignore interest. I act like a responsible adult [my story and I am sticking to it] but the impulse is not to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am also happy to see, Caitlyn Jenner has finally been presented. I hope she finds fulfillment and happiness with her new life.

Silver Crusade System Administrator

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bdk86 wrote:
A bunch of things I've been thinking on...

This Vanity Fair thing has bothered me for a lot of reasons. First, I feel like she left her new name out of her interview because she wanted to use it to cause a spectacle. And she does it in one of the ways that makes me very uncomfortable in that I feel like this reflects on trans people, especially trans women, as all about the objectifying of women's bodies. This a line I, myself, tread very very carefully and I feel I'm very well thought on the subject and to see her sprint across that line and claim victory feels really kind of icky to me. I also feel like my criticisms make me seem bitter and I *am* super bitter in some ways. I don't know. Lot of junk to think on. Been navel gazing since last night.


Lissa Guillet wrote:
bdk86 wrote:
A bunch of things I've been thinking on...
This Vanity Fair thing has bothered me for a lot of reasons. First I feel like she left her new name out of her interview because she wanted to use it to cause a spectacle. And she does it in one of the ways that makes me very uncomfortable in that I feel like this reflects on trans people, especially trans women, as all about the objectifying of womens bodies. This a line I myself tread very very carefully and I feel I'm very well thought on the subject and to see her sprint across that line and claim victory feels really kind of icky to me. I also feel like my criticisms make me seem bitter and I am super bitter in some ways. I don't know. Lot of junk to think on. Been navel gazing since last night.

As I said on the other thread: Kardashian.

What else would you expect? Trans or not, there's not a lot of moral high ground in any of that bunch.

Silver Crusade System Administrator

I guess. Everything I heard about the interview though seemed pretty on target and I guess I hoped for better.

Liberty's Edge

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
There is certainly a great deal of variation in heterosexual women.

Oh, absolutely.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
The term demisexual is new to me. I think it differs from what I have called a romantic asexual, who wants romantic relationships but is disinterested in sex as such. But I am no expert, so I could have it wrong.

Yeah, it's different. I'm certainly interested in sex, and even in sex with women I'm not in a romantic relationship with...just not until I know them pretty damn well and like them.

I like to call it my '3:00 in the morning' rule. If a woman isn't someone who, if the called me at 3:00 in the morning and said they needed help I would drop everything and go help, I'm just not attracted. I'm not attracted to everyone who that's true of, but it's a necessary prerequisite to attraction.

Some demisexual people are a bit more selective, only being attracted to people they're in love with, for example...but I can really only speak to my own experiences.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
And can I ask a question its fine if you don't answer. Is the sexual attraction... urgent? I am not as horny as when I was younger, nobody is, but seeing a really attractive female [even one I don't know at all] get a pretty immediate and hard to ignore interest. I act like a responsible adult [my story and I am sticking to it] but the impulse is not to.

I dunno what you mean by 'urgent'...but based on what I understand about other people's attractions, it's about as strong and urgent as other people's once it kicks in. There's just a higher bar for the attraction to kick in.


Honestly, I think you're heterosexual and picky.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Honestly, I think you're heterosexual and picky.

Speaking as another demisexual, it has absolutely nothing to do with being picky. Please do not deny people's sexuality.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Navior wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Honestly, I think you're heterosexual and picky.
Speaking as another demisexual, it has absolutely nothing to do with being picky. Please do not deny people's sexuality.

Yeah, the community should seriously be more open to the asexual spectrum. The things I hear are just downright shameful. "You're not asexual, women just have lower libidos!" (false, btw), "You're not demisexual, you're just picky." "You're not aromantic, you're just not opening yourself to romance/love." "You're not really asexual, it's all just a result of some trauma."

Asexuals get their identity denied and invalidated even in our community, and I think we can do way better than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
And can I ask a question its fine if you don't answer. Is the sexual attraction... urgent? I am not as horny as when I was younger, nobody is, but seeing a really attractive female [even one I don't know at all] get a pretty immediate and hard to ignore interest. I act like a responsible adult [my story and I am sticking to it] but the impulse is not to.
I dunno what you mean by 'urgent'...but based on what I understand about other people's attractions, it's about as strong and urgent as other people's once it kicks in. There's just a higher bar for the attraction to kick in.

Thanks for weighing in, Deadmanwalking. I’m not sure if this is what Joynt Jezebel was getting at, but if it’s not too personal and inquisitive to ask, would you be willing to elaborate a bit on how attraction kicks in for you?

From the perspective of someone who’s not demisexual but interested in trying to understand important parts of other people’s lives as best she can, I’m also interested in exploring how far possible similarities might go and where they end. In my own experience, in addition to the background of momentary attractions (Oh, that stranger is attractive! And that one! And that one! … I’m an impressionable young thing, I guess. *Blushes.*), I’ve occasionally found myself suddenly realizing that I’m becoming – or, more mortifyingly still, have become – more attracted to someone than I expected.

I guess what I’m asking is whether your experiences lean more to a tipping point in intimacy, unpredictable but after which attraction suddenly becomes possible, or if possibilities develop in a particular relationship in a way that you can see coming, or, heaven forfend, that in retrospect you think you should have seen coming, “OK, I’m close enough to X that in theory I could be attracted to them.”

I ask because, again, as someone who’s not demisexual, my experience of attraction is as sometimes a sort of background, so I’m trying to imagine what it might be like to suddenly realize that one’s attracted to someone without that background – if that’s even how it works, often, or ever. I don’t want to get the wrong idea into my head. I’m sorry for the fuzziness of the phrasing, and I apologize if I’ve inadvertently said something offensive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Joynt Jezebel wrote:
The term demisexual is new to me. I think it differs from what I have called a romantic asexual, who wants romantic relationships but is disinterested in sex as such. But I am no expert, so I could have it wrong.

Yeah, it's different. I'm certainly interested in sex, and even in sex with women I'm not in a romantic relationship with...just not until I know them pretty damn well and like them.

I like to call it my '3:00 in the morning' rule. If a woman isn't someone who, if the called me at 3:00 in the morning and said they needed help I would drop everything and go help, I'm just not attracted. I'm not attracted to everyone who that's true of, but it's a necessary prerequisite to attraction.

Some demisexual people are a bit more selective, only being attracted to people they're in love with, for example...but I can really only speak to my own experiences.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
And can I ask a question its fine if you don't answer. Is the sexual attraction... urgent? I am not as horny as when I was younger, nobody is, but seeing a really attractive female [even one I don't know at all] get a pretty immediate and hard to ignore interest. I act like a responsible adult [my story and I am sticking to it] but the impulse is not to.
I dunno what you mean by 'urgent'...but based on what I understand about other people's attractions, it's about as strong and urgent as other people's once it kicks in. There's just a higher bar for the attraction to kick in.

Thanks for the reply Deadmanwalking.

And on Qunessaa's saying that they didn't know what I was getting at, I was just trying to understand. Rather like Qunessaa I think.


Is there a less douchey name for "bromance"? Men who are sexually attracted to women, but form a stronger emotional bond with other men?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Homoromantic heterosexual would be the term if I understand things correctly.


Is it so far out of the norm to only want to or be able to have sex with people you have feelings for? There's a label for that now?
I guess you can take me out of the CIS box and put me in the demisexual box, then.

Project Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Is it so far out of the norm to only want to or be able to have sex with people you have feelings for? There's a label for that now?

I guess you can take me out of the CIS box and put me in the demisexual box, then.

Yeah, I'm not sure that only being interested in having sex with people for whom you already have feelings puts you on the asexual spectrum.


HenshinFanatic wrote:
Homoromantic heterosexual would be the term if I understand things correctly.

For a guy who complained about labels, a page or so back, I like that term better than "bromance". Bromance to me, invokes the whole "bro-culture", which makes me sick to my stomach- I see it every day. It's misogyny used to cover up insecurity- any affection for other males, has to be followed by "no homo". If it's relevant, I grew up in the mid-west, where this is common.

I was in a fraternity in college; and before any of the pig-stereotypes come to mind, that is not what it was like. If the women at our events were ever uncomfortable, or treated wrong- that s+@* did not fly. I bring up the frat, because honestly, "homoromantic heterosexual" was the norm, without any guy knowing it. I think whenever an emotional bond men have for other men gets scrutinized by insecure homophobes, it lead to "bro-culture".

Liberty's Edge

I'm thouroughly unconvinced asexuality is a spectrum.

Uninterested in sex with any gender, sure, you're asexual.

Occasionally interested in sex when certain criteria are met? Sorry, you're gay, straight, or bisexual.

Just like a homosexual person who gets married to a person of the opposite sex and has sex and kids with them is not hetero or bisexual, some one who isn't interested in sex most of the time but is sometimes is not asexual.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
I'm thouroughly unconvinced asexuality is a spectrum.

Then it's a very good thing that, unless you're part of the asexuality spectrum, it's not up to you to determine such things. :)

Much like I wouldn't presume to tell a woman what is or isn't feminism, I wouldn't tell people on the asexual spectrum what is or isn't asexuality.

7,851 to 7,900 of 17,688 << first < prev | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The LGBT Gamer Community Thread. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.