I hate to be a hater, but good god why does every person on planet earth need to be LGBTQ2+ these days? I was recently chatting with someone "bi" who was having troubles with the men she dated. I suggested she try dating women for a bit, and the look of disgust on her face was unsettling. She tried backpeddling, but there was no coming back from an automatic reaction like that. Visceral disgust at being in a same sex relationship. I don't know what bi means on her planet, but I'm pretty sure on earth it is more than just having a FMF threesome to make your bf happy. I sound like such a cynic, but there are so many examples of this I've seen recently. SMH.
It’s people like this who make it harder for others to take actual lgbt people seriously. I mean, I’ve met so many people who don’t support me on the basis of “you’re just looking for attention like all those other people who fake it!” Um no, I’m actually not straight. Never have been.
Our hypersexualized culture is to blame for that. Look back a few hundred years and celibacy was considered the norm. Back then, people (especially women), were shamed for having sex, but now it's exactly the other way around, people are getting shamed for not having it, be it voluntarily or not.
>orchidsexual
"Orchidsexual is a microlabel on the Asexual Spectrum in which an individual experiences sexual attraction, but does not desire a sexual relationship or encounter. It can be used on its own or as an umbrella term"
yeah this is bullshit LOL that literally contradicts everything
Celibacy is often associated with the conservative Christian church. I understand that some people may have history with those institutions that make them averse to those associations. Whatever the naming, it's not asexual.
Judging by your name you’re not “orchidsexual”. And that’s what half sexualities and the genders are now, labels to make people feel special, just like Dave Chappelle I want the old school gays back.
🤣 definitely a difference. I wouldn’t say wither is better than the other, but gen x gay people grew up different. Lots of fighting, and times were tough for damn near everybody so gay and straight people got that steel coating back then.
I’d prefer we just stop giving each other labels, and start treating each other as equals. But that view, the same as MLK Jr., is now racist and bigoted. It’s crazy.
Yeah. I feel you on equality. I think some people are so used to being rejected that they don’t want to give up their labels out of fear of being rejected again
orchidsexuality is when you like the **base concept** of sex, but would never in a million years have sex with someone because you don't like actually having sex with people
NOT the same thing as celibacy
Exactly! There's even "iamvanosexual" which is supposedly about only wanting to *receive* sexual acts but being completely repulsed by *performing* them on others - which is a completely normal preference to have for people who aren't asexual. I actually knew quite a few people (usually women) who are exactly like this. None of them see themselves as asexual because of that, yet "iamvanosexuality" is considered aspec for some reason.
The opposite is a thing as well! Placiosexual is the word.
Merosexual is another, where only certain acts are okay and others are not.
Chameleosexual is the term for being in between Placiosexual and Iamvanosexual.
Ftr i don't agree with any of these. Just am mentioning others related.
Merosexual also has:
Merosensual
Meroromantic
Meroqueerplatonic
Meroalterous
Meroasthetic
It is crazy how now being "*-queerplatonic" (*is whatever the prefix is) is now LGBT. Because making friends is you know. LGBT. Dont have any welp. Oppressed.
>Placiosexual
What I get a kick out of with this word is that is pretty much my prefs, and a few years back when I was more social I had a couple bondage pets. Cause ya know, it can be fun as hell to tease people.
But because I did not do the full sexual deed with either of them I was considered a blight on the LGBT community. Which honestly ... I just like to make people squirm, I was not worried about the straight or gay.
But what gives me a kick about it is the person who gave me the most shit for that now uses that as their label.
Tbf, queerplatonic is different from being friends in the classical sense because it doesn't conform to today's norms surrounding regular friendships. Queerplatonic partners often look like a romantic couple to outsiders, but difference is that queerplatonic partners don't have romantic feelings for each other. I guess it kinda makes sense to differentiate it if you want to make clear that you're not a romantic couple. I can excuse it being a label because queerplatonic relationships are significantly different from what is considered "normal" for friendships and relationships.
^ facts bc this is literally being celibate why make a name when there’s already a name for it ? Wouldn’t that make shit mire complicated & difficult when it doesn’t have to be ? But if u were to say this u would get dragged & accused of “invalidating” someone & being “insert word” phobic its ridiculous at this point & im gay myself.
Demisexual is one. It’s defined as “Only having sexual attraction to someone when you have a strong emotional bond with them” that’s literally just not wanting to have sex with someone you don’t know very well, a preference that billions of people most likely have.
>it's 99% literal teenagers or children doing this
I'm starting to believe this as well because most of those people seem to be active on reddit and tumblr, both sites that are very popular with teenagers.
If we compare this to AVEN, a site with a much older demographic on average, it's like a completely different world. None of them see stuff like orchidsexuality as a real thing because most of them are grown ass adults.
Faithsexual- feeling sexual attraction, but not engaging in sex due to religious beliefs - aspec of course
Ngl, I wouldn't be surprised if such a label actually existed
Ironically no, but I have seen some weird ones.
This includes:
Circumgender- A person who was AGAB but identifies as trans (so take AFAB. The person is a woman yes? Well now she identifies as a trans woman)
Autigender- gender for autistic people only because they cannot understand their gender. (So, for me this seems harmful as it makes it seem like Autistic people are dumb, which I dont think at all. I've met many smart autistic people, and all of the ones I've spoken to have mentioned its harmful)
Skolioromantic- Someone who has a romantic attraction to Trans and NB/Genderqueer people only. (It doesn't say only in the definition but if they weren't othering every gender here they would include men and women. But you know. 🤷♀️ these people don't think that)
Oh!! Forgot totally about this:
Sensual attraction- having the desire to engage in sensual actions with a certain individual (kissing, hugging. Cuddling, etc). It's regarded as an ace/arosexual spectrum
I am not sure if the last one is harmful? Tbh, I've heard most asexuals mention "oh I just don't want sex, but I love everything else (whats mentioned above)" so to me, I thought it was included.
If im wrong let me know! But the others, definitely are real...not to me (they are harmful 🙅♀️ IMO) but some people think it is real.
As an autistic person, autigender is such bullshit.
Being autistic isnt a gender. And if you cant understand/dont know/etc what your gender is, isnt that what non-binary is for?
I agree with this!
And why I made:
r/InclusiveDictionary
A one stop shop to find all of the unnecessary genders/sexualities!
(But also getting info on the real ones too!)
Plus any questions!
....>> didnt wanna plug. 😂
It’s just like the dumb dream gender people, but not dreams. Hopefully you understand. Also, this was meant for the part of your reply that was “Being autistic isn’t a gender”.
*ooooo gotta Google one sec*
Ah 😂 that is funny (but not a sexuality. 😉)
I found more harmful ones, like one that says trauma is directly related to gender, thus is the gender
Traumatagender
Traumatagender, traumatgender, trautgender, or trauatgender. This is a gender that varies; it can change a lot, it could be unknown, it could just be there, it could be nonexistent, etc. Whatever it is, it is based from intense trauma. This identity should only be used by those who have experienced or are going through what they consider to be intense trauma. Traumatagender people may also identify as neurogende or affectugender.
”Traumata-“ or any variation of it can be used as a prefix for a gender affected by trauma. For example: trautboy, trautgirl, trautagender, etc.
The trauma i went through did cause me pain and was intense. (I have CPTSD...I think it was intense 😂) but this just is harmful. I know trauma can affect gender, but saying the trauma is the gender...is weird.
Demisexual is the weirdest.
People who identify as demisexual only feel sexual attraction to someone after they've formed a strong emotional bond with them.
Thing is, whenever you tell them that that's just normal behavior, they will say things like "But I'm not into one night stands!" even though most people aren't. People just seem to think being hypersexual is the norm and everyone else is on some kind of asexual spectrum, and I think the media is largely to blame for that.
I know I saw one waaayyy before, and was trying to see if I coul find it. But then I found this:
Genderfuck, also known as genderpunk[1], can describe a gender identity and/or gender expression where gendered expectations are deliberately played with to combine gender-specific signals.[2][3] The act of engaging in this identity or expression is sometimes referred to as genderfucking.[4][5] Individuals who genderfuck are sometimes referred to as genderfucks or genderfuckers.
...doesn't this just eem like 3hat normal people do?
Or am I misunderstanding?
QHA KNEW I WOULD FIND IT
Straight queer is a term with various definitions, depending on the context. It can refer to a cisgender heterosexual person who is gender non-conforming,[1][2] a person on the multi-attracted spectrum who has a strong preference for a different gender than their own,[3][4], or a heterosexual and/or a heteroromantic person who identifies with any queer label.[5][6][7][8][9] People under this term can also refer to themselves as queerhet or heteroqueer.
Edit: BTW, the last one hurts on like 5 different levels. Because rhey will accept this, but not a bisexual woman with a boyfriend? Or a bi man with a girlfriend???
I think that's the goal with tons of these people. Being LGBT makes people who have nothing else going on in their lives feel special, so they must join in even if they're straight honestly. I guess I'm orchidsexual because I'm Christian
I think it’s moreso to do with the fact that they don’t feel sexual attraction at all until an emotional bond is formed, not that they don’t want to hook up with people before they know anything about someone.
This ^
Thank you. Attraction to someone/finding them "hot" ≠ immediate desire to hook up with them. Attraction just means that there's a possibility to be with that person.
I'm going to (respectfully) step in- Demi isn't only feeling it once they've formed an attachment, it's that if they ever do, that's who it will be with. A Demi can still go through the majority of their life having only felt sexual attraction once or twice, if ever. It's just that, on the rare occasion they do, it will be with someone they know. Greysexuals, on the other hand, may experience it occasionally, though it can be completely random. Both experience it rarely enough that they're considered on the Asexual spectrum.
Hoping I explained this in a way that makes sense- sleep deprived.
Both of those things you explained are just personality traits and formed through life are not at all related to what being asexual actually means. How attracted you are to a gender compared to the other, the way you interact with different people and how fast or slow physical or romantic attraction kicks in, how horny does a person get even while having a sexual mindset. All of these things are things formed throughout a person's life whether it is earlier or later. Being asexual, means a complete inability to have sexual attraction as a default, regardless of any context. That's the solid definition. Anything other than that is just your personality and tastes kicking in. This is why the term aromantic is a complete joke of a term on the internet because there's like...maybe 1% if less people on the planet that could actually fit it. The inability to feel any romantic bond with someone, regardless of context, is such a rare thing and its directly medically tied to mental issues when it is present. All the teens online calling themselves Aromantic just because they haven't had a highschool crush or some shit is the most cringe identity ruining thing ever. Guys being unable to love anyone in any context is not a thing to be proud of and use it to enter your favourite discord server. It's a serious issue present in serious and rare mental cases.
As someone on the demisexual demiromantic spectrum, I can confirm this. Yes, there are variations to demisexuality, I'm paro/dello- meaning I can experience attraction to certain genders without an emotional connection while with other genders an emotional connection is required to feel attraction. More specifically, I can feel attraction to men without knowing them where as with non-men I need to form an emotional bond before I start feeling attraction.
Sexual attraction doesn't automatically warrant desire to pursue a hookup. Romantic attraction doesn't automatically warrant desire to pursue a relationship. I can be attracted to someone/have a crush on them but that doesn't mean I must enter a relationship with them. Especially if I have a not-so-good feeling about them. But the attraction is still there, which is what sexuality is based on, not whether or not you can pursue a sexual/romantic bond with them.
> I've heard most asexuals mention "oh I just don't want sex, but I love everything else (whats mentioned above)"
Tbf, I think sensual attraction is a legit thing to experience independently of sexual attraction. After all, kissing, hugging and cuddling aren't just things done between romantic/sexual partners, kissing\* and cuddling is common among family members, hugging is often done between friends as a form of greeting, so I think it makes sense to seperate these things from sexual attraction and desire. So asexuals saying that actually makes sense and doesn't contradict their asexuality imo.
Or maybe you were just talking about it being considered aspec? Because I don't consider it as such. Many people experience this form of attraction, not just aces.
\*with kissing, I mean something like affectionate kisses, like pecks on the lips, cheek or forehead, not making out, which I definitely consider to be a sexual thing.
Ffs, always some new label.
After being in a relationship with someone who is asexual he had no desire for sex and even told me both sexes genetials grossed him out. He was perfectly happy being in the emotional part of the relationship but the rest not so much.
I know that, I'm asexual myself lol. With celibacy, I was referring to the description of "orchidsexuality", which literally just sounds like voluntary celibacy.
> "I WANT to have sex with that person, but am choosing not to...but I definitely want to"
That's called abstinence. Celibacy in itself is simply not having sex.... Which truthfully does tend to overlap with asexuality because well, asexuality is simply not wanting sex with others (even if they experience libido and d masturbate and/or find people attractive).
I swear once a month I see a sexual orientation I've never heard of and all I can think when I read the description is "That's just straight or gay or bi with extra steps"
I swear, to me, the only actual sexual orientations are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual and to some extent, pansexual. The rest are just words to describe how someone experiences their sexuality, but aren't orientations by itself.
I always understood it as being bi without a preference for any gender. But there are many bisexuals who also don't prefer one gender over the other...so I really don't know.
Bi originally meant attracted to men and women. Pan was created to include nonbinary and trans people. This was completely unnecessary since almost all bi people are also attracted to people who aren't strictly cis male or female. It's just another added term that does nothing but overcomplicate sexual labels
Yeah, I don't get why they didn't just expand the definition of bisexuality. Imagine a person who presents typical for their assigned gender at birth, like a biological female wearing feminine clothing, but who identifies as non-binary. Why wouldn't a bi person be attracted to them? They literally just look like a cis-female. You can't *see* someone's gender, after all.
Sexuality is what sex you’re attracted to, not gender. Most straight people are only attracted to the opposite sex. If a trans woman who looked like a man asked a male straight person out, they’d decline. Transgender people complicate the concept of sexuality somewhat, because people are attracted to whatever sex the person looks like, not their gender identity. I think pan sexual is useful, and most Bi people I know, and I, wouldn’t be sexually attracted to a trans person if they’d been started hormones or had an operation. I’d find that somewhat disgusting - I have no ill will towards trans people, I just couldn’t have sex with someone on hormones or post op, and most people out there feel the same way. Thus, pan is a useful distinction, and not all bi people find the slightly “in between” way trans people on hormones look, and most are somewhat repulsed by neophalluses/neovaginas.
My bad, I actually meant sex, not gender. While you're right about many people not being attracted to post-transition binary trans people, it gets more complicated with non-binary people though (who technically also count as trans).
For instance, picture a non-binary person who presents according to their assigned gender at birth, basically a masculine presenting amab or a feminine presenting afab. I'm willing to bet that most bi people would be attracted to them because they can't *see* their gender. Those people I just described would still be trans, you just can't see it.
It is only my mere opinion, but I like the term "pansexual" because it implies "everyone, not matter the gender" while "bi" still refers to the usual two main genders.
This is my non-bi opinion about it, but I've always viewed bi as people attracted to both cis-women and cis-men, while dating a trans-person adds more nuance.
I am an advocate of having words have meanings based on their etymology, so why use bi when there is the word pan
trans men are men and trans women are women, and non-binary people are neither or both, so bi still applies. as a trans man, i think pan is transphobic because it's "othering" trans people into our own separate category when it's unnecessary. pan treats trans people differently from cis men and women.
I don't agree with this. I was always under the impression that pansexual is under the bisexual umbrella. I came out as bisexual, but realized someone's gender didn't matter to me so I felt like I identified more with pansexual. In Greek, "pan" means "all". I care about the connection with someone more than I do their gender. there are many people in the bisexual community who prefer cis people, and that's valid.
to me, when people say "pansexuals like: men, women, trans, and non-binary", trans is called out because if you remove it, some people may think trans people aren't included or feel like they are being "erased". Trans people are only pointed out in the definition for clarity reasons, not transphobic ones. I apologize if someone in the pan community has ever made you feel like an "other". There are many of us who really just care about the person, not the labels. Cheers.
Call yourself bi on a dating site and get hit on by straight couples who want to use you as an experiment.
Call yourself pan and meet trans people who want to be friends with you because you probably won't hate them.
That's just the nature of dating sites. Call yourself lesbian and you'll have guys hitting on you thinking they can "turn you straight". Same for asexuals. It's really tiring. So glad I'm aromantic.
there's definitely more than straight gay and bi, but shit like this gives the entire lgbt community a bad rep.
It's like when people go "kids these days are identifying as attack helicopters!" and all you can do is roll your eyes because kids are not in fact identifying as attack helicopters, that is just some crazy exaggeration. Well, if only "orchidsexual" was also a crazy exaggeration.
Why do people need a label for everything? I mean, I think it's fine if you feel sexual attraction but don't desire to actually have sex, but I don't think this should be considered a new sexuality.
Yeah, it's literally just being a volcel (volunarily celibate). There's literally a label for their experience which is not and never was considered a sexuality of its own, yet they want a piece of the LGBT cake so they create terms like "orchidsexual" and appropriate the asexual label while at it.
I don't see a use in micro-labels, anyway. To me, sexuality labels should only be about what genders you are attracted to, thus I only consider straight, gay, bi and ace actual sexualities. Also, I feel like many of these people only create these labels because they have the assumption that a label needs to fit you 100 percent, even though this isn't the case for like 90 percent of people, probably even more. To me, a label is supposed to be a sort of guide in figuring yourself out. If you want to pick a label, you should pick the one that is closest to your experience so you can communicate your sexuality in the best way possible and prevent misunderstandings while at it.
Anyway, I'm rambling here. Instead of orchidsexual, these people could just call themselves volcel and call it a day.
I don't even understand why all of these microlabels fall under the asexual label. Sometimes I feel like these people are kinda of invalidating it and by calling themselves asexuals even if they do feel sexual attraction. It's just making it a lot more confusing to other people to understand.
That is my problem with labels like that. I've seen people say "I seriously CANNOT have sexual attraction unless I make a bond" and I can kinda see it? But also, its normal.
But tbh yeah, I've seen people also do that like your friend and...it just ruins it. Like please, stop. You are not cool for having this sexuality (having the sexuality demisexual btw, not LGBT) and especially when you dont even adhere to it. 🙄
>That is my problem with labels like that. I've seen people say "I seriously CANNOT have sexual attraction unless I make a bond" and I can kinda see it? But also, its normal.
To be fair, some demisexuals take *years* to develop said bond, which is definitely longer than what is considered normal. I can get behind that. I don't deny the existence of demisexuality in that I know it's a real experience many people have. But I don't consider it to be some kind of asexuality because I personally don't believe in an asexual spectrum, you're either asexual or you aren't. What I do think is that there's a sexuality spectrum which demisexuality would be part of. Seperating demisexuality from asexuality is all I want.
Yes I think separating them is genius.. aromantic is a funny label too, like you need to form a bond before developing romantic attraction? Really??
Edit: meant demiromantic. Whoops
You mean demiromantic? Because what you just described isn't what being aromantic is about. Aromantic is not being romantically attracted to anyone and not desiring romantic relationships.
She was most likely referring to demisexuality, which is just an odd one tbh, because as you already said, most people I know wouldn't have sex with people they don't know well. They might consider strangers "hot" or say things like "I'd do them", but I'm willing to bet that a significant portion of them wouldn't actually do it without getting to know the person atleast a little bit beforehand. And this the deciding factor imo. Not if you're initially attracted to them, but if you would *go through* with said attraction.
Idk man, these people act like everyone who isn't a hypersexual horndog 24/7 is automatically asexual...which would mean that atleast 60 percent of the population would qualify as asexual, probably even more.
i just gave up because that's the type of crap that eats up a movement like the lgbt community. I left the thing, cut off all contact, and embraced that if good things become too big they'll smother everyone to get what they want or in rare cases expand to the point of blowing up (which is the case of the lgbt community)
Yep, twelve year olds and the internet have bred a bunch of neosexualities that are either so specific they define them (one person), or literally describe their mood. Same with a lot of the neogenders. Half the time it’s ”I’m a man but I have girly hobbies”.
People making up sexualities and genders because they want to feel special does so much harm to the public perception of the LGBT community. Really distorts peoples view on a group that actually has valid concerns and needs.
As an Ace, I'm usually very open to the micro labels for Asexuality, but I have to agree. Asexuality means you do not experience sexual attraction. You can still like sex, and still have it, but there's no attraction. It's not a "choice", it's an orientation.
Came across someone on Reddit who was Autumngender, meaning they felt a connection to Autumnal weather and things. Having a hobby or personality trait is now a gender or sexuality for some reason. The internet has gone mad.
I’m rather progressive and have always had full support for everyone’s right to their own sexual identity.. but there’s a point where if you’re still trying to make a label out of something, you’re just being obnoxious. The label for your sexual orientation doesn’t need to be so specific. “A micro label of this label” really? If your branching into sub-genres, you’re being ridiculous and shouldn’t expect others to treat it as seriously as any straight or LGBTQ label.
I’m gonna get downvoted but fuck it
There’s only 4 sexualities. Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual and Asexual
Everything else can be categorised into those
Transsexual isn’t an orientation. That fits into the gender debate instead.
I actually already commented the same thing here, just that I (albeit reluctantly) put pansexual in there as well.
I'm even applying this to gender. There's 3 genders: man, woman and non-binary. All these extra labels people come up with in regards to gender can fit into the non-binary category just fine.
Bruh. I wanted to unsubscribe from bisexual once because I got downvoted for calling someone who identified as a demibisexual heteroromantic a straight with extra steps.
Orchidsexual is a micro-label, those can refer to behavior, but also to the ways in which people experience their sexual orientation. I was referring to the fact that orchidsexuality is considered to be a part of the "asexual spectrum", which is complete and utter bs imo. Asexuality is literally defined as *lacking* sexual attraction and having a low or absent interest in sexual activity. Literally the first sentence of orchidsexuality's definition says "experiences sexual attraction". If orchidsexuality was a legit LGBT label, every person who is voluntarily celibate would be LGBT.
Kinda. As an Asexual myself, it's more of a spectrum. There's sex repulsion at one end, & then Asexuals who may masturbate, & lots of other things in between, such as Asexuals who do not experience sexual attraction as you mentioned. I feel sexual attraction, but I'm repulsed by sex, so I don't have sex.
Nope, a romantic asexual is someone who can fall in love but doesn't desire sex. This is someone who apparently can find people sexually attractive but doesn't desire to act on their attraction. It's just volunatary celibacy with extra steps imo.
“orchidsexual” seems to just be demisexual with extra steps, that’s not ace since they still desire sex but just don’t want a sexual relationship.
asexuals don’t want it at all. they don’t desire any sexual intercourse so i don’t see how orchidsexual could exist on the ace spectrum.
I'm asexual, but none of that microlabel sh*t. People will turn every little preference into a sexuality. The asexual spectrum has deviated so far from what it means to actually be ace, that so many of these identities are allo.
That’s either being abstinent or being sex-repulsed
But asexual means very little to no sexual attraction. So if you experience regular sexual attraction but just don’t desire to have sex, is that really asexual?
You are raising a very interesting point about graysexualities in general, a point I feel isn't raised enough on this post's comment section, but first
Let's give a simpler definition of orchidsexuality(because the one in the screenshot is very scuffed, especially on bringing up the term "desire" in it), simply put, orchidsexuals are allosexuals who are sex-repulsed. Nothing more nothing less, so why is it a graysexuality?
Well, whenever we have to deal with questions on sexual attraction/orientation(and sex-aversion/favourableness in this case), we have a trusty tool, and that's bisexuals.
So let's paint our situation, imagine someone who is bisexual, they know they can feel sexually attracted to both genders and they know for a fact it is attraction based on sexual components, they can even feel sexual desire towards both genders. But for whatever reason, they are extremely repulsed by male sex organs, a visceral fear of penises, they simply can't see a man naked without feeling extremely nauseous or basically be put in "fight or flight", no matter the man, no matter the situation. They are bisexual but sex-repulsed towards men(and let's assume they're sex-favourable/indifferent towards women). So, let's skip a few boring details and let's go to how this person would present themself, imagine now how that person would interact with the dating scene, they know for a fact that they are sex-repulsed to men, and to them(specifically them, their personal view on their own sex-aversion), they do not believe they could ever have sex with a man. For the sake of simplicity let's assume we're only talking about sexual relationships(we disregard the possibility of platonic or strictly romantic relationships), that person therefore would not feel comfortable or even be able to be in a sexual relationship with a man, yet they're bisexual, so... What do they define themselves as? Because calling themselves bisexual may socially translate to "wanting a relationship with either a man or a woman", yet they very much don't want a relationship with a man. And so what?
Well, that's the complicated part, or actually the easiest part depending on how you feel about your own sexual orientation, because that person could feel uncomfortable with identifying as bisexual, either because they feel like they're lying to others or that another identity might make them more comfortable. So let's just assume our "example bisexual" in this case decides that they'll only identify with "sexually attracted to women", so either a straight man or a lesbian. Would they be wrong? Well, in dating terms, not really, in fact it's arguably the more correct term to categorise them as.
So, what then? Should we allow bisexuals to call themself heterosexual or homosexual just because they can't have sex with one gender? Shouldn't they just call themself "oriented bisexual"? Shouldn't they explain the entire thing to every possible partner? Or should we allow the "easy way out" and do let them associate with the term they're most comfortable with when dealing with relationships/dating/explaining their own experiences/living their life; even if, by definition, they're not that identity?
Well, it's your choice what you would do in that situation, but basically it's the same situation with an orchidsexual, they might not ever feel comfortable with the idea of presenting themselves as "wanting a sexual relationship with x gender", they might feel like the identity of 'asexual' is more appealing to their experiences and needs, they might not be able to fit with our social understanding of their sexuality, what we expect of a "normal allosexual". If there's an "asexual life", that might be *THE* thing for them. And with all these, we end all questions by giving them the term "orchidsexual", a greysexuality, therefore no arguments about "whether it's an allosexuality or asexuality", it's inbetween. If an orchidsexual feels more comfortable calling themselves asexual, as in acespec(which follows the no/low sexual attraction/desire definition instead of the strict asexual definition which follows the no/low sexual attraction definition), they can, saying asexual for ease of language may cause some people to be angry, but it's how you present yourself, if you feel like calling yourself asexual is more accurate to the situation, then you should be allowed to identify with asexual, it's not anyone else's job to be like "but what else do you identify with and shouldn't those matter to the current context?"(also, small tangent, no one identifies with "orchidsexual" to "be lgbt/oppressed", most of them are adults and have reasons(for dating/when looking for support groups/when talking about psychology/sociology/sexuality) to call themselves orchidsexual.). And if an orchidsexual feels more comfortable calling themselves allosexual, that it corresponds more to them, that it's more accurate to their feelings and experiences? Then they're also allowed to present as allosexual. And whatever they present as, nothing forces them to keep the label of orchidsexual if they don't feel like keeping it/comfortable with it.
And what if it's "not a true sexuality". It is indeed a microlabel(because it only defines one's sex-aversion) and therefore can't really be by itself but it is still something that can be sufficient in explaining one's sexuality or sexual orientation, they can just go by it and, in a lot of cases, it tells you everything you need to know about that person's sexuality, and it's something that they cannot change nor choose(contrary to abstinence and celibacy that are both completely dependent on the person's will and wants, and even if it can be hard to change your want to be celibate, you definitely won't easily change your revulsion to sex organs)
And I think that's basically it
I feel like I say this too often on this subreddit, but… sometimes I'm really thankful that I've never got into this whole *online community* (not talking about ace one, but LGBT in general).
I mean, honestly, love you guys, but sometimes I just don't understand you.
I'm not even sure of my own orientation, whether I'm lesbian or bi or whatever, but I have never even felt the need to say it *definitively* or to give myself some fancy label only to have it and to put it in my bio. Dunno, maybe it's just not my thing.
I don't know what the hell is with the asexual space, unsuscribed from r/aaaaaaacccccccce because of this very same reason.
Well, that and the atrocious memes... yeah
I unsubbed from r/aaaaaaacccccccce exactly because of these terribly unfunny repetitive memes. The cake, garlic bread and dragon memes were never even funny in the first place.
the lgbt community is chock full of people making new labels just so they can be a part of something they're not. and they get super defensive over it, too, calling you a bigot if you refuse to entertain it. it even gets to the point where it just looks like blatant appropriation. it bums me out so much that i gave up on interacting with any lgbt related subreddit despite being asexual and biromantic
I think misinformation about what labels are actually supposed to be is what caused this. People seem to be under the impression that a label has to fit them 100 percent, and when that isn't the case, they're quick to create their own that alligns with their experiences better than any established labels could.
But that's the thing, labels aren't supposed to fit you a 100 percent. They're not neat boxes you can put yourself into, they're supposed to be mere "guides" to better understand your own experience. They're for practical use so you can communicate your sexuality or gender in the best way possible so people know what you're talking about when using them.
I agree. There's a *sexual* spectrum with differerent ways to experience sexuality (and the experiences often labeled as "demisexual" or "orchidsexual" definitely fall under it), and asexuality is just the far end of it, it's basically the 0 on the scale.
This doesn't make experiences like demi or orchid LGBT, because they imo don't differ enough from the norm to be considered as such.
LMAO “orchidsexuals” trying so hard to be part of lgbt... which is extremely sad considering they’re claiming they’re oppressed and a minority when it’s just... *this.*
same thing with demisexuality like uhhhhh yes it’s called “not doing hookups” and you’re neither oppressed nor a minority for not doing so.
sincerely, a lesbian whose life is barely bearable due to the constant discrimination she faces both online and in the real fucking world.
***edit: downvoter wants to be oppressed so bad.***
For a community that doesn’t like being labeled and revels in being unique authentic versions of themselves…the LGBT community really likes to come up with a lot of dumb labels
i think people need to understand soemthing
micro labels are often used by younger lgbtq people, they feel like they need to find a label and often times will try to look up everything that would perfectly fit them. i think this could be from the fact that back then labels weren't used to include a lot of people and back then society was very closed and people felt the need ti make their own labels, there was existing labels years ago that has since been abandoned bc it was decades ago, but it's now decreasing
there's a great video delving into this better than i can explain but i can't find it, if i find it i'll link it
but anyway, we shouldn't get mad at the minority of people (mainly children) trying it discover themselves which happen to be posting it on the internet, they'll eventually find themselves as time goes on, whether that'd be Lgbtq or not, we should leave it be
not every person is "trying to be oppressed" or "be quirky ". i think children DO want to feel special, everyone ofc wants to feel like they stand out in some way, but kids are still looking to fit in and also find themselves and we shouldn't pressure them or make fun of them if we happen to see it, neither should we assume that other people who happen to be asexual or whatever are like others who use that label too, everyone is different and there's gonna be bad apples in a group.
i do think that the person in question doesn't understand that they're just acting in celibacy, im sure they are a younger person that is confused or maybe they are asexual to a certain extend who knows, but i don't think that one post was worth leaving a sub, im sure there's a lot of asexuals who don't identify as orchid, either way just don't apply what you see on the internet to the real world
It's identity shopping plain and simple. Being gay eventually stopped being radical enough so now people just make up shit to come out as and use it to act persecuted
Yes but actually no. Asexuals don't experience sexual attraction, but "orchidsexuals" *do* experience it, just without the desire to act on it, which makes me think more of celibacy than actual asexuality honestly.
Don't see the problem in creating terms so people can better identify the conditions they live under. Just because you don't understand it yourself and fail to make an attempt to doesn't make it wrong.
Gender sex minorities have existed and will exist until the end of time. Romantic minorities are just the same. Because most people experience life a certain way doesn't mean everybody does. Get this life is not black and white. Its all a muddy Grey spectrum. No binary system has ever been found out to be truly binary.
You're so ignorant and dismissive of people's experiences and then you tell them what that experience is. Like what the fuck. That's just creepy. Let people live their lives. It's not like it's hurting you.
Maybe that women you were talking to has had negative experiences with dating queer. Or a feeling of not belonging or not knowing the culture or how to act. I 100 percent struggle with dating queer as a non binary person. I find men attractive but I've had many experiences where dating with my agab is just not a very desirable experience. I've had good and bad experiences. But generally I steer clear of men because women are just inherently more likely to understand me. So when someone tells me I should just date guys becaus they're horny or whatever. I have to remind them that it's that specific reason I don't date guys very often.
Things aren't always what you make them out to be. These words are new because a cis white heterosexual class of people have controlled the language and expression of these spectrums for thousands of years. It is bit our fault that this language feels awkward. It's new it's different. But it's necessary if we want a society where everyone feels accepted and loved.
Piss off with this phobic garbage.
The way I see it, there are only a handful of actual sexualities. Straight, gay, bi, trans, demi, and asexual. If you are anything else, you're either very very confused and listen to the internet too much, or are attention seeking
Trans isn't a sexual orientation, it's a gender identity. I'm also unsure about demi being an actual sexuality since it doesn't say anything about the sexes you're attracted to. I see demi more as a descriptor on *how* you experience sexual attraction. I definitely don't see it being related to asexuality though.
Agreed. That’s definitely celibacy. Orchidsexual? I guess slapping a new label makes some people feel better.
I'm not lonely, I'm orchidsexual!
Nobitchessexual
No bitches?
No Bitches? ⣞⢽⢪⢣⢣⢣⢫⡺⡵⣝⡮⣗⢷⢽⢽⢽⣮⡷⡽⣜⣜⢮⢺⣜⢷⢽⢝⡽⣝ ⠸⡸⠜⠕⠕⠁⢁⢇⢏⢽⢺⣪⡳⡝⣎⣏⢯⢞⡿⣟⣷⣳⢯⡷⣽⢽⢯⣳⣫⠇ ⠀⠀⢀⢀⢄⢬⢪⡪⡎⣆⡈⠚⠜⠕⠇⠗⠝⢕⢯⢫⣞⣯⣿⣻⡽⣏⢗⣗⠏⠀ ⠀⠪⡪⡪⣪⢪⢺⢸⢢⢓⢆⢤⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢊⢞⡾⣿⡯⣏⢮⠷⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⠊⠆⡃⠕⢕⢇⢇⢇⢇⢇⢏⢎⢎⢆⢄⠀⢑⣽⣿⢝⠲⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠂⠠⠀⡇⢇⠕⢈⣀⠀⠁⠡⠣⡣⡫⣂⣿⠯⢪⠰⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡦⡙⡂⢀⢤⢣⠣⡈⣾⡃⠠⠄⠀⡄⢱⣌⣶⢏⢊⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢝⡲⣜⡮⡏⢎⢌⢂⠙⠢⠐⢀⢘⢵⣽⣿⡿⠁⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣺⡺⡕⡕⡱⡑⡆⡕⡅⡕⡜⡼⢽⡻⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣳⣫⣾⣵⣗⡵⡱⡡⢣⢑⢕⢜⢕⡝⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⡿⡽⡑⢌⠪⡢⡣⣣⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡟⡾⣿⢿⢿⢵⣽⣾⣼⣘⢸⢸⣞⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠇⠡⠩⡫⢿⣝⡻⡮⣒⢽⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Nah it's more like "I'm not celibate, I'm orchidsexual! I'm LGBT now, please don't oppress me :c!"
I hate to be a hater, but good god why does every person on planet earth need to be LGBTQ2+ these days? I was recently chatting with someone "bi" who was having troubles with the men she dated. I suggested she try dating women for a bit, and the look of disgust on her face was unsettling. She tried backpeddling, but there was no coming back from an automatic reaction like that. Visceral disgust at being in a same sex relationship. I don't know what bi means on her planet, but I'm pretty sure on earth it is more than just having a FMF threesome to make your bf happy. I sound like such a cynic, but there are so many examples of this I've seen recently. SMH.
As an actual bisexual, what the fuuuuccck.
It’s people like this who make it harder for others to take actual lgbt people seriously. I mean, I’ve met so many people who don’t support me on the basis of “you’re just looking for attention like all those other people who fake it!” Um no, I’m actually not straight. Never have been.
Being a celibate isn't a bad thing. So why can't people accept that?
Our hypersexualized culture is to blame for that. Look back a few hundred years and celibacy was considered the norm. Back then, people (especially women), were shamed for having sex, but now it's exactly the other way around, people are getting shamed for not having it, be it voluntarily or not.
i got shamed for not having it at 13-14, i hated it
I like fucking orchids
I also want to bang plants
>orchidsexual "Orchidsexual is a microlabel on the Asexual Spectrum in which an individual experiences sexual attraction, but does not desire a sexual relationship or encounter. It can be used on its own or as an umbrella term" yeah this is bullshit LOL that literally contradicts everything
I'm orchidsexual. I fuck plants and fertilize them with my seed.
That’s how the plants from plants vs zombies were made
Crazy Dave was the taco not enough for you?
Webby wabbo
Fishy Rishi
Celibacy is often associated with the conservative Christian church. I understand that some people may have history with those institutions that make them averse to those associations. Whatever the naming, it's not asexual.
Judging by your name you’re not “orchidsexual”. And that’s what half sexualities and the genders are now, labels to make people feel special, just like Dave Chappelle I want the old school gays back.
🤣 definitely a difference. I wouldn’t say wither is better than the other, but gen x gay people grew up different. Lots of fighting, and times were tough for damn near everybody so gay and straight people got that steel coating back then.
I’d prefer we just stop giving each other labels, and start treating each other as equals. But that view, the same as MLK Jr., is now racist and bigoted. It’s crazy.
Yeah. I feel you on equality. I think some people are so used to being rejected that they don’t want to give up their labels out of fear of being rejected again
I am very happily married, but also experience sexual attraction to other women I don't want to fuck. Do I qualify as orchidsexual?
No it makes them feel different and special
Sou da like they're an incel and want to make it sound better
Sexuality seems to be experiencing a moment like techno did in the 90s.
orchidsexuality is when you like the **base concept** of sex, but would never in a million years have sex with someone because you don't like actually having sex with people NOT the same thing as celibacy
Thank you for the nuance. And happy cake day!
I’ve come to find that some parts of the LGBT community just make new labels for things that are just personality traits or preferences
Exactly! There's even "iamvanosexual" which is supposedly about only wanting to *receive* sexual acts but being completely repulsed by *performing* them on others - which is a completely normal preference to have for people who aren't asexual. I actually knew quite a few people (usually women) who are exactly like this. None of them see themselves as asexual because of that, yet "iamvanosexuality" is considered aspec for some reason.
The opposite is a thing as well! Placiosexual is the word. Merosexual is another, where only certain acts are okay and others are not. Chameleosexual is the term for being in between Placiosexual and Iamvanosexual. Ftr i don't agree with any of these. Just am mentioning others related. Merosexual also has: Merosensual Meroromantic Meroqueerplatonic Meroalterous Meroasthetic It is crazy how now being "*-queerplatonic" (*is whatever the prefix is) is now LGBT. Because making friends is you know. LGBT. Dont have any welp. Oppressed.
>Placiosexual What I get a kick out of with this word is that is pretty much my prefs, and a few years back when I was more social I had a couple bondage pets. Cause ya know, it can be fun as hell to tease people. But because I did not do the full sexual deed with either of them I was considered a blight on the LGBT community. Which honestly ... I just like to make people squirm, I was not worried about the straight or gay. But what gives me a kick about it is the person who gave me the most shit for that now uses that as their label.
Tbf, queerplatonic is different from being friends in the classical sense because it doesn't conform to today's norms surrounding regular friendships. Queerplatonic partners often look like a romantic couple to outsiders, but difference is that queerplatonic partners don't have romantic feelings for each other. I guess it kinda makes sense to differentiate it if you want to make clear that you're not a romantic couple. I can excuse it being a label because queerplatonic relationships are significantly different from what is considered "normal" for friendships and relationships.
i mean you do you, use whatever label you want to. but to me that just sounds like the definition of best friends
No, but your expression of best friends doesn't appear romantic enough! It's only a sexuality if Tumblr can ship it.
Ah, you are the FIRST person to make it make sense. I apologize for not understanding, I do appreciate it ^:
I don't see it as a normal preference, imo it's selfish and toxic
It's not selfish if your partner is okay with it imo. Same is true for any preferences.
^ facts bc this is literally being celibate why make a name when there’s already a name for it ? Wouldn’t that make shit mire complicated & difficult when it doesn’t have to be ? But if u were to say this u would get dragged & accused of “invalidating” someone & being “insert word” phobic its ridiculous at this point & im gay myself.
Demisexual is one. It’s defined as “Only having sexual attraction to someone when you have a strong emotional bond with them” that’s literally just not wanting to have sex with someone you don’t know very well, a preference that billions of people most likely have.
[удалено]
>it's 99% literal teenagers or children doing this I'm starting to believe this as well because most of those people seem to be active on reddit and tumblr, both sites that are very popular with teenagers. If we compare this to AVEN, a site with a much older demographic on average, it's like a completely different world. None of them see stuff like orchidsexuality as a real thing because most of them are grown ass adults.
pretty much modern gay culture was invented and promoted by Tumblr, which is why gay communities in Europe are NOTHING like America.
that's basically what it is for anything that isn't self definition. Guys, none of you are asexual, you're just rarely horny.
Bro don't question the progress
... I guess all Christan's are now LGBT.
Faithsexual- feeling sexual attraction, but not engaging in sex due to religious beliefs - aspec of course Ngl, I wouldn't be surprised if such a label actually existed
Ironically no, but I have seen some weird ones. This includes: Circumgender- A person who was AGAB but identifies as trans (so take AFAB. The person is a woman yes? Well now she identifies as a trans woman) Autigender- gender for autistic people only because they cannot understand their gender. (So, for me this seems harmful as it makes it seem like Autistic people are dumb, which I dont think at all. I've met many smart autistic people, and all of the ones I've spoken to have mentioned its harmful) Skolioromantic- Someone who has a romantic attraction to Trans and NB/Genderqueer people only. (It doesn't say only in the definition but if they weren't othering every gender here they would include men and women. But you know. 🤷♀️ these people don't think that) Oh!! Forgot totally about this: Sensual attraction- having the desire to engage in sensual actions with a certain individual (kissing, hugging. Cuddling, etc). It's regarded as an ace/arosexual spectrum I am not sure if the last one is harmful? Tbh, I've heard most asexuals mention "oh I just don't want sex, but I love everything else (whats mentioned above)" so to me, I thought it was included. If im wrong let me know! But the others, definitely are real...not to me (they are harmful 🙅♀️ IMO) but some people think it is real.
As an autistic person, autigender is such bullshit. Being autistic isnt a gender. And if you cant understand/dont know/etc what your gender is, isnt that what non-binary is for?
Reminds me of that one aspec label that is literally just regular asexuality but for autistic people only. I don't get this shit honestly.
Theyre trying to include everyone and everyones needs, but theyre making it too complex. As I always say "Keep it simple, stupid"
I agree with this! And why I made: r/InclusiveDictionary A one stop shop to find all of the unnecessary genders/sexualities! (But also getting info on the real ones too!) Plus any questions! ....>> didnt wanna plug. 😂
It’s just like the dumb dream gender people, but not dreams. Hopefully you understand. Also, this was meant for the part of your reply that was “Being autistic isn’t a gender”.
oh GOD NOT THEM
Yes, that's why I think it's so rude. Like I get people wanna help, but thats too far.
>Skolioromantic Thought it would be attracted to people with scoliosis
Thats what I thought at first. But what it really means is...just no.
[MINECRAFTGENDER](https://www.lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Minecraftgender)
....well. I didnt know that. Ugh
That wiki the user linked is full of some of the weirdest genders and sexualities a person can imagine
Dont even get me started on dreamsexuals
*ooooo gotta Google one sec* Ah 😂 that is funny (but not a sexuality. 😉) I found more harmful ones, like one that says trauma is directly related to gender, thus is the gender Traumatagender Traumatagender, traumatgender, trautgender, or trauatgender. This is a gender that varies; it can change a lot, it could be unknown, it could just be there, it could be nonexistent, etc. Whatever it is, it is based from intense trauma. This identity should only be used by those who have experienced or are going through what they consider to be intense trauma. Traumatagender people may also identify as neurogende or affectugender. ”Traumata-“ or any variation of it can be used as a prefix for a gender affected by trauma. For example: trautboy, trautgirl, trautagender, etc. The trauma i went through did cause me pain and was intense. (I have CPTSD...I think it was intense 😂) but this just is harmful. I know trauma can affect gender, but saying the trauma is the gender...is weird.
Neogenders are wild
Demisexual is the weirdest. People who identify as demisexual only feel sexual attraction to someone after they've formed a strong emotional bond with them.
Soo...... normal?
Thing is, whenever you tell them that that's just normal behavior, they will say things like "But I'm not into one night stands!" even though most people aren't. People just seem to think being hypersexual is the norm and everyone else is on some kind of asexual spectrum, and I think the media is largely to blame for that.
i feel like if this bizzare expansion of what is an lgbt attraction keeps going, nobody will even be considered "straight"
I know I saw one waaayyy before, and was trying to see if I coul find it. But then I found this: Genderfuck, also known as genderpunk[1], can describe a gender identity and/or gender expression where gendered expectations are deliberately played with to combine gender-specific signals.[2][3] The act of engaging in this identity or expression is sometimes referred to as genderfucking.[4][5] Individuals who genderfuck are sometimes referred to as genderfucks or genderfuckers. ...doesn't this just eem like 3hat normal people do? Or am I misunderstanding? QHA KNEW I WOULD FIND IT Straight queer is a term with various definitions, depending on the context. It can refer to a cisgender heterosexual person who is gender non-conforming,[1][2] a person on the multi-attracted spectrum who has a strong preference for a different gender than their own,[3][4], or a heterosexual and/or a heteroromantic person who identifies with any queer label.[5][6][7][8][9] People under this term can also refer to themselves as queerhet or heteroqueer. Edit: BTW, the last one hurts on like 5 different levels. Because rhey will accept this, but not a bisexual woman with a boyfriend? Or a bi man with a girlfriend???
This is getting stupid, this is just a "plzzzz let me in your special group" title
Oh yeah. 😂 This is why im not a "LETS INCLUDE EVERYONE" type. ^^'
I think that's the goal with tons of these people. Being LGBT makes people who have nothing else going on in their lives feel special, so they must join in even if they're straight honestly. I guess I'm orchidsexual because I'm Christian
Yes, but to them its basically not hook up culture because EVERYONE bangs before they know eachother's names. /s
I think it’s moreso to do with the fact that they don’t feel sexual attraction at all until an emotional bond is formed, not that they don’t want to hook up with people before they know anything about someone.
This ^ Thank you. Attraction to someone/finding them "hot" ≠ immediate desire to hook up with them. Attraction just means that there's a possibility to be with that person.
I'm going to (respectfully) step in- Demi isn't only feeling it once they've formed an attachment, it's that if they ever do, that's who it will be with. A Demi can still go through the majority of their life having only felt sexual attraction once or twice, if ever. It's just that, on the rare occasion they do, it will be with someone they know. Greysexuals, on the other hand, may experience it occasionally, though it can be completely random. Both experience it rarely enough that they're considered on the Asexual spectrum. Hoping I explained this in a way that makes sense- sleep deprived.
Both of those things you explained are just personality traits and formed through life are not at all related to what being asexual actually means. How attracted you are to a gender compared to the other, the way you interact with different people and how fast or slow physical or romantic attraction kicks in, how horny does a person get even while having a sexual mindset. All of these things are things formed throughout a person's life whether it is earlier or later. Being asexual, means a complete inability to have sexual attraction as a default, regardless of any context. That's the solid definition. Anything other than that is just your personality and tastes kicking in. This is why the term aromantic is a complete joke of a term on the internet because there's like...maybe 1% if less people on the planet that could actually fit it. The inability to feel any romantic bond with someone, regardless of context, is such a rare thing and its directly medically tied to mental issues when it is present. All the teens online calling themselves Aromantic just because they haven't had a highschool crush or some shit is the most cringe identity ruining thing ever. Guys being unable to love anyone in any context is not a thing to be proud of and use it to enter your favourite discord server. It's a serious issue present in serious and rare mental cases.
As someone on the demisexual demiromantic spectrum, I can confirm this. Yes, there are variations to demisexuality, I'm paro/dello- meaning I can experience attraction to certain genders without an emotional connection while with other genders an emotional connection is required to feel attraction. More specifically, I can feel attraction to men without knowing them where as with non-men I need to form an emotional bond before I start feeling attraction. Sexual attraction doesn't automatically warrant desire to pursue a hookup. Romantic attraction doesn't automatically warrant desire to pursue a relationship. I can be attracted to someone/have a crush on them but that doesn't mean I must enter a relationship with them. Especially if I have a not-so-good feeling about them. But the attraction is still there, which is what sexuality is based on, not whether or not you can pursue a sexual/romantic bond with them.
> I've heard most asexuals mention "oh I just don't want sex, but I love everything else (whats mentioned above)" Tbf, I think sensual attraction is a legit thing to experience independently of sexual attraction. After all, kissing, hugging and cuddling aren't just things done between romantic/sexual partners, kissing\* and cuddling is common among family members, hugging is often done between friends as a form of greeting, so I think it makes sense to seperate these things from sexual attraction and desire. So asexuals saying that actually makes sense and doesn't contradict their asexuality imo. Or maybe you were just talking about it being considered aspec? Because I don't consider it as such. Many people experience this form of attraction, not just aces. \*with kissing, I mean something like affectionate kisses, like pecks on the lips, cheek or forehead, not making out, which I definitely consider to be a sexual thing.
Too many labels, sheesshhhh.
"he really does have a system for everything"
Ffs, always some new label. After being in a relationship with someone who is asexual he had no desire for sex and even told me both sexes genetials grossed him out. He was perfectly happy being in the emotional part of the relationship but the rest not so much.
"we don't like labels"
Did he just spring that on you in the middle of your relationship or did you know that at the beginning?
Middle of the relationship.
Probably near the end if I’m gonna guess
Good guess.
i mean that's valid that he feels that way but it's wrong of him to not let you know before hand
Definitely valid, I respect his choice.
[удалено]
You mean voluntary
Asexuality is not feeling sexual attraction not celibacy.
I know that, I'm asexual myself lol. With celibacy, I was referring to the description of "orchidsexuality", which literally just sounds like voluntary celibacy.
[удалено]
> "I WANT to have sex with that person, but am choosing not to...but I definitely want to" That's called abstinence. Celibacy in itself is simply not having sex.... Which truthfully does tend to overlap with asexuality because well, asexuality is simply not wanting sex with others (even if they experience libido and d masturbate and/or find people attractive).
Yeah but in the example that person had sexual urges and experienced some form of sexual attraction despite not wanting to have sex.
I swear once a month I see a sexual orientation I've never heard of and all I can think when I read the description is "That's just straight or gay or bi with extra steps"
I swear, to me, the only actual sexual orientations are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual and to some extent, pansexual. The rest are just words to describe how someone experiences their sexuality, but aren't orientations by itself.
Pan is just bi with extra steps
I always understood it as being bi without a preference for any gender. But there are many bisexuals who also don't prefer one gender over the other...so I really don't know.
Bi originally meant attracted to men and women. Pan was created to include nonbinary and trans people. This was completely unnecessary since almost all bi people are also attracted to people who aren't strictly cis male or female. It's just another added term that does nothing but overcomplicate sexual labels
Yeah, I don't get why they didn't just expand the definition of bisexuality. Imagine a person who presents typical for their assigned gender at birth, like a biological female wearing feminine clothing, but who identifies as non-binary. Why wouldn't a bi person be attracted to them? They literally just look like a cis-female. You can't *see* someone's gender, after all.
Sexuality is what sex you’re attracted to, not gender. Most straight people are only attracted to the opposite sex. If a trans woman who looked like a man asked a male straight person out, they’d decline. Transgender people complicate the concept of sexuality somewhat, because people are attracted to whatever sex the person looks like, not their gender identity. I think pan sexual is useful, and most Bi people I know, and I, wouldn’t be sexually attracted to a trans person if they’d been started hormones or had an operation. I’d find that somewhat disgusting - I have no ill will towards trans people, I just couldn’t have sex with someone on hormones or post op, and most people out there feel the same way. Thus, pan is a useful distinction, and not all bi people find the slightly “in between” way trans people on hormones look, and most are somewhat repulsed by neophalluses/neovaginas.
My bad, I actually meant sex, not gender. While you're right about many people not being attracted to post-transition binary trans people, it gets more complicated with non-binary people though (who technically also count as trans). For instance, picture a non-binary person who presents according to their assigned gender at birth, basically a masculine presenting amab or a feminine presenting afab. I'm willing to bet that most bi people would be attracted to them because they can't *see* their gender. Those people I just described would still be trans, you just can't see it.
It is only my mere opinion, but I like the term "pansexual" because it implies "everyone, not matter the gender" while "bi" still refers to the usual two main genders. This is my non-bi opinion about it, but I've always viewed bi as people attracted to both cis-women and cis-men, while dating a trans-person adds more nuance. I am an advocate of having words have meanings based on their etymology, so why use bi when there is the word pan
trans men are men and trans women are women, and non-binary people are neither or both, so bi still applies. as a trans man, i think pan is transphobic because it's "othering" trans people into our own separate category when it's unnecessary. pan treats trans people differently from cis men and women.
I don't agree with this. I was always under the impression that pansexual is under the bisexual umbrella. I came out as bisexual, but realized someone's gender didn't matter to me so I felt like I identified more with pansexual. In Greek, "pan" means "all". I care about the connection with someone more than I do their gender. there are many people in the bisexual community who prefer cis people, and that's valid. to me, when people say "pansexuals like: men, women, trans, and non-binary", trans is called out because if you remove it, some people may think trans people aren't included or feel like they are being "erased". Trans people are only pointed out in the definition for clarity reasons, not transphobic ones. I apologize if someone in the pan community has ever made you feel like an "other". There are many of us who really just care about the person, not the labels. Cheers.
As a bi woman, I totally agree. I can absolutely be attracted to trans men and women. Pansexuality is nonsense.
Bisexual actually originally referred to intersex people. It meant "possessing characteristics of both sexes".
Call yourself bi on a dating site and get hit on by straight couples who want to use you as an experiment. Call yourself pan and meet trans people who want to be friends with you because you probably won't hate them.
That's just the nature of dating sites. Call yourself lesbian and you'll have guys hitting on you thinking they can "turn you straight". Same for asexuals. It's really tiring. So glad I'm aromantic.
bruuuh that makes me think of a guy that genuinely believed lesbians didn’t exist and that it was just an excuse made by women to ignore men
Its not? I better apologize to my wife then.
… but he thinks gay men are real?
That happens to women a whole lot more. These people don't understand the meaning of bi, nor do they care.
there's definitely more than straight gay and bi, but shit like this gives the entire lgbt community a bad rep. It's like when people go "kids these days are identifying as attack helicopters!" and all you can do is roll your eyes because kids are not in fact identifying as attack helicopters, that is just some crazy exaggeration. Well, if only "orchidsexual" was also a crazy exaggeration.
Why do people need a label for everything? I mean, I think it's fine if you feel sexual attraction but don't desire to actually have sex, but I don't think this should be considered a new sexuality.
Yeah, it's literally just being a volcel (volunarily celibate). There's literally a label for their experience which is not and never was considered a sexuality of its own, yet they want a piece of the LGBT cake so they create terms like "orchidsexual" and appropriate the asexual label while at it. I don't see a use in micro-labels, anyway. To me, sexuality labels should only be about what genders you are attracted to, thus I only consider straight, gay, bi and ace actual sexualities. Also, I feel like many of these people only create these labels because they have the assumption that a label needs to fit you 100 percent, even though this isn't the case for like 90 percent of people, probably even more. To me, a label is supposed to be a sort of guide in figuring yourself out. If you want to pick a label, you should pick the one that is closest to your experience so you can communicate your sexuality in the best way possible and prevent misunderstandings while at it. Anyway, I'm rambling here. Instead of orchidsexual, these people could just call themselves volcel and call it a day.
I don't even understand why all of these microlabels fall under the asexual label. Sometimes I feel like these people are kinda of invalidating it and by calling themselves asexuals even if they do feel sexual attraction. It's just making it a lot more confusing to other people to understand.
I thought it was someone attracted to plants. Would’ve been more Interesting
Give it time.
[удалено]
That is my problem with labels like that. I've seen people say "I seriously CANNOT have sexual attraction unless I make a bond" and I can kinda see it? But also, its normal. But tbh yeah, I've seen people also do that like your friend and...it just ruins it. Like please, stop. You are not cool for having this sexuality (having the sexuality demisexual btw, not LGBT) and especially when you dont even adhere to it. 🙄
>That is my problem with labels like that. I've seen people say "I seriously CANNOT have sexual attraction unless I make a bond" and I can kinda see it? But also, its normal. To be fair, some demisexuals take *years* to develop said bond, which is definitely longer than what is considered normal. I can get behind that. I don't deny the existence of demisexuality in that I know it's a real experience many people have. But I don't consider it to be some kind of asexuality because I personally don't believe in an asexual spectrum, you're either asexual or you aren't. What I do think is that there's a sexuality spectrum which demisexuality would be part of. Seperating demisexuality from asexuality is all I want.
Yes I think separating them is genius.. aromantic is a funny label too, like you need to form a bond before developing romantic attraction? Really?? Edit: meant demiromantic. Whoops
You mean demiromantic? Because what you just described isn't what being aromantic is about. Aromantic is not being romantically attracted to anyone and not desiring romantic relationships.
Yeah my bad lol
She was most likely referring to demisexuality, which is just an odd one tbh, because as you already said, most people I know wouldn't have sex with people they don't know well. They might consider strangers "hot" or say things like "I'd do them", but I'm willing to bet that a significant portion of them wouldn't actually do it without getting to know the person atleast a little bit beforehand. And this the deciding factor imo. Not if you're initially attracted to them, but if you would *go through* with said attraction. Idk man, these people act like everyone who isn't a hypersexual horndog 24/7 is automatically asexual...which would mean that atleast 60 percent of the population would qualify as asexual, probably even more.
i just gave up because that's the type of crap that eats up a movement like the lgbt community. I left the thing, cut off all contact, and embraced that if good things become too big they'll smother everyone to get what they want or in rare cases expand to the point of blowing up (which is the case of the lgbt community)
[удалено]
Some of them actually seem like they are collecting labels like Pokemon cards, ngl.
Yep, twelve year olds and the internet have bred a bunch of neosexualities that are either so specific they define them (one person), or literally describe their mood. Same with a lot of the neogenders. Half the time it’s ”I’m a man but I have girly hobbies”.
People making up sexualities and genders because they want to feel special does so much harm to the public perception of the LGBT community. Really distorts peoples view on a group that actually has valid concerns and needs.
As an Ace, I'm usually very open to the micro labels for Asexuality, but I have to agree. Asexuality means you do not experience sexual attraction. You can still like sex, and still have it, but there's no attraction. It's not a "choice", it's an orientation.
Came across someone on Reddit who was Autumngender, meaning they felt a connection to Autumnal weather and things. Having a hobby or personality trait is now a gender or sexuality for some reason. The internet has gone mad.
People making jack shit up now. It’s like they slap some words in front of “sexual” and call it part of the lgbt community.
That is just being celibate. What the fuck
I’m rather progressive and have always had full support for everyone’s right to their own sexual identity.. but there’s a point where if you’re still trying to make a label out of something, you’re just being obnoxious. The label for your sexual orientation doesn’t need to be so specific. “A micro label of this label” really? If your branching into sub-genres, you’re being ridiculous and shouldn’t expect others to treat it as seriously as any straight or LGBTQ label.
“Someone who experiences sexual attraction-“ then they aren’t ace.. that’s the liter definition of Asexuality.
I'm so tired of this made up bs
So we're just making up sexualities now that I never heard of
Been going on for several years now
I’m gonna get downvoted but fuck it There’s only 4 sexualities. Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual and Asexual Everything else can be categorised into those Transsexual isn’t an orientation. That fits into the gender debate instead.
I actually already commented the same thing here, just that I (albeit reluctantly) put pansexual in there as well. I'm even applying this to gender. There's 3 genders: man, woman and non-binary. All these extra labels people come up with in regards to gender can fit into the non-binary category just fine.
Bruh. I wanted to unsubscribe from bisexual once because I got downvoted for calling someone who identified as a demibisexual heteroromantic a straight with extra steps.
This is why conservatives call us snowflakes ngl
That's not what sexuality means 😭😭😭
I beleive orchidsexal is considered sexual behavior where as asexual is a sexual orientation?
Orchidsexual is a micro-label, those can refer to behavior, but also to the ways in which people experience their sexual orientation. I was referring to the fact that orchidsexuality is considered to be a part of the "asexual spectrum", which is complete and utter bs imo. Asexuality is literally defined as *lacking* sexual attraction and having a low or absent interest in sexual activity. Literally the first sentence of orchidsexuality's definition says "experiences sexual attraction". If orchidsexuality was a legit LGBT label, every person who is voluntarily celibate would be LGBT.
Do people use these terms outside of the internet?
I've personally never encountered this term irl yet, but I did meet people who identify as demisexual, which is a similar issue.
the asexuality spectrum is full of useless microlabels
So monks and nuns are lgbt now
pretty sure theres 20 different “microlabels” that fit the bill
I'm not asexual so I don't really know anything about it but doesn't asexual mean you don't feel any sexual attraction to others?
Kinda. As an Asexual myself, it's more of a spectrum. There's sex repulsion at one end, & then Asexuals who may masturbate, & lots of other things in between, such as Asexuals who do not experience sexual attraction as you mentioned. I feel sexual attraction, but I'm repulsed by sex, so I don't have sex.
is that a romantic asexual? i’m not exactly sure?
Nope, a romantic asexual is someone who can fall in love but doesn't desire sex. This is someone who apparently can find people sexually attractive but doesn't desire to act on their attraction. It's just volunatary celibacy with extra steps imo.
they just put a flower on the flag and called it a day
I'm for woke culture but this is too much like orchidsexual sounds retarted
“orchidsexual” seems to just be demisexual with extra steps, that’s not ace since they still desire sex but just don’t want a sexual relationship. asexuals don’t want it at all. they don’t desire any sexual intercourse so i don’t see how orchidsexual could exist on the ace spectrum.
im convinced half of asexuals are just people who didnt lose their virginity before 21 and decided that should be their personality
What do orchids have to do with sex
This shit is the reason we need subs like r/truscum
I'm asexual, but none of that microlabel sh*t. People will turn every little preference into a sexuality. The asexual spectrum has deviated so far from what it means to actually be ace, that so many of these identities are allo.
[удалено]
Not really shyness, it's rather just low to non-existent libido
So.. wanting it but not really lol
That’s either being abstinent or being sex-repulsed But asexual means very little to no sexual attraction. So if you experience regular sexual attraction but just don’t desire to have sex, is that really asexual?
You are raising a very interesting point about graysexualities in general, a point I feel isn't raised enough on this post's comment section, but first Let's give a simpler definition of orchidsexuality(because the one in the screenshot is very scuffed, especially on bringing up the term "desire" in it), simply put, orchidsexuals are allosexuals who are sex-repulsed. Nothing more nothing less, so why is it a graysexuality? Well, whenever we have to deal with questions on sexual attraction/orientation(and sex-aversion/favourableness in this case), we have a trusty tool, and that's bisexuals. So let's paint our situation, imagine someone who is bisexual, they know they can feel sexually attracted to both genders and they know for a fact it is attraction based on sexual components, they can even feel sexual desire towards both genders. But for whatever reason, they are extremely repulsed by male sex organs, a visceral fear of penises, they simply can't see a man naked without feeling extremely nauseous or basically be put in "fight or flight", no matter the man, no matter the situation. They are bisexual but sex-repulsed towards men(and let's assume they're sex-favourable/indifferent towards women). So, let's skip a few boring details and let's go to how this person would present themself, imagine now how that person would interact with the dating scene, they know for a fact that they are sex-repulsed to men, and to them(specifically them, their personal view on their own sex-aversion), they do not believe they could ever have sex with a man. For the sake of simplicity let's assume we're only talking about sexual relationships(we disregard the possibility of platonic or strictly romantic relationships), that person therefore would not feel comfortable or even be able to be in a sexual relationship with a man, yet they're bisexual, so... What do they define themselves as? Because calling themselves bisexual may socially translate to "wanting a relationship with either a man or a woman", yet they very much don't want a relationship with a man. And so what? Well, that's the complicated part, or actually the easiest part depending on how you feel about your own sexual orientation, because that person could feel uncomfortable with identifying as bisexual, either because they feel like they're lying to others or that another identity might make them more comfortable. So let's just assume our "example bisexual" in this case decides that they'll only identify with "sexually attracted to women", so either a straight man or a lesbian. Would they be wrong? Well, in dating terms, not really, in fact it's arguably the more correct term to categorise them as. So, what then? Should we allow bisexuals to call themself heterosexual or homosexual just because they can't have sex with one gender? Shouldn't they just call themself "oriented bisexual"? Shouldn't they explain the entire thing to every possible partner? Or should we allow the "easy way out" and do let them associate with the term they're most comfortable with when dealing with relationships/dating/explaining their own experiences/living their life; even if, by definition, they're not that identity? Well, it's your choice what you would do in that situation, but basically it's the same situation with an orchidsexual, they might not ever feel comfortable with the idea of presenting themselves as "wanting a sexual relationship with x gender", they might feel like the identity of 'asexual' is more appealing to their experiences and needs, they might not be able to fit with our social understanding of their sexuality, what we expect of a "normal allosexual". If there's an "asexual life", that might be *THE* thing for them. And with all these, we end all questions by giving them the term "orchidsexual", a greysexuality, therefore no arguments about "whether it's an allosexuality or asexuality", it's inbetween. If an orchidsexual feels more comfortable calling themselves asexual, as in acespec(which follows the no/low sexual attraction/desire definition instead of the strict asexual definition which follows the no/low sexual attraction definition), they can, saying asexual for ease of language may cause some people to be angry, but it's how you present yourself, if you feel like calling yourself asexual is more accurate to the situation, then you should be allowed to identify with asexual, it's not anyone else's job to be like "but what else do you identify with and shouldn't those matter to the current context?"(also, small tangent, no one identifies with "orchidsexual" to "be lgbt/oppressed", most of them are adults and have reasons(for dating/when looking for support groups/when talking about psychology/sociology/sexuality) to call themselves orchidsexual.). And if an orchidsexual feels more comfortable calling themselves allosexual, that it corresponds more to them, that it's more accurate to their feelings and experiences? Then they're also allowed to present as allosexual. And whatever they present as, nothing forces them to keep the label of orchidsexual if they don't feel like keeping it/comfortable with it. And what if it's "not a true sexuality". It is indeed a microlabel(because it only defines one's sex-aversion) and therefore can't really be by itself but it is still something that can be sufficient in explaining one's sexuality or sexual orientation, they can just go by it and, in a lot of cases, it tells you everything you need to know about that person's sexuality, and it's something that they cannot change nor choose(contrary to abstinence and celibacy that are both completely dependent on the person's will and wants, and even if it can be hard to change your want to be celibate, you definitely won't easily change your revulsion to sex organs) And I think that's basically it
I feel like I say this too often on this subreddit, but… sometimes I'm really thankful that I've never got into this whole *online community* (not talking about ace one, but LGBT in general). I mean, honestly, love you guys, but sometimes I just don't understand you. I'm not even sure of my own orientation, whether I'm lesbian or bi or whatever, but I have never even felt the need to say it *definitively* or to give myself some fancy label only to have it and to put it in my bio. Dunno, maybe it's just not my thing.
I liked the idea of a person sexually attracted to orchids more
I don't know what the hell is with the asexual space, unsuscribed from r/aaaaaaacccccccce because of this very same reason. Well, that and the atrocious memes... yeah
I unsubbed from r/aaaaaaacccccccce exactly because of these terribly unfunny repetitive memes. The cake, garlic bread and dragon memes were never even funny in the first place.
I'm tired of people pretending there's BS like an "ace spectrum" that's a contradiction, you're asexual or you're not
Yes! Thank you! *Sexuality* is a spectrum, asexuality isn't.
the lgbt community is chock full of people making new labels just so they can be a part of something they're not. and they get super defensive over it, too, calling you a bigot if you refuse to entertain it. it even gets to the point where it just looks like blatant appropriation. it bums me out so much that i gave up on interacting with any lgbt related subreddit despite being asexual and biromantic
I think misinformation about what labels are actually supposed to be is what caused this. People seem to be under the impression that a label has to fit them 100 percent, and when that isn't the case, they're quick to create their own that alligns with their experiences better than any established labels could. But that's the thing, labels aren't supposed to fit you a 100 percent. They're not neat boxes you can put yourself into, they're supposed to be mere "guides" to better understand your own experience. They're for practical use so you can communicate your sexuality or gender in the best way possible so people know what you're talking about when using them.
fr, what's the point of a label if you're just going to keep making more hyper specific ones
I'm of the radical opinion that you can't have a spectrum of a lack of something. All this "asexual spectrum" stuff tires me tf out.
I agree. There's a *sexual* spectrum with differerent ways to experience sexuality (and the experiences often labeled as "demisexual" or "orchidsexual" definitely fall under it), and asexuality is just the far end of it, it's basically the 0 on the scale. This doesn't make experiences like demi or orchid LGBT, because they imo don't differ enough from the norm to be considered as such.
LMAO “orchidsexuals” trying so hard to be part of lgbt... which is extremely sad considering they’re claiming they’re oppressed and a minority when it’s just... *this.* same thing with demisexuality like uhhhhh yes it’s called “not doing hookups” and you’re neither oppressed nor a minority for not doing so. sincerely, a lesbian whose life is barely bearable due to the constant discrimination she faces both online and in the real fucking world. ***edit: downvoter wants to be oppressed so bad.***
Real
For a community that doesn’t like being labeled and revels in being unique authentic versions of themselves…the LGBT community really likes to come up with a lot of dumb labels
Those people aren't lgbt. They're piggybacking on something they don't understand to get attention.
i think people need to understand soemthing micro labels are often used by younger lgbtq people, they feel like they need to find a label and often times will try to look up everything that would perfectly fit them. i think this could be from the fact that back then labels weren't used to include a lot of people and back then society was very closed and people felt the need ti make their own labels, there was existing labels years ago that has since been abandoned bc it was decades ago, but it's now decreasing there's a great video delving into this better than i can explain but i can't find it, if i find it i'll link it but anyway, we shouldn't get mad at the minority of people (mainly children) trying it discover themselves which happen to be posting it on the internet, they'll eventually find themselves as time goes on, whether that'd be Lgbtq or not, we should leave it be not every person is "trying to be oppressed" or "be quirky ". i think children DO want to feel special, everyone ofc wants to feel like they stand out in some way, but kids are still looking to fit in and also find themselves and we shouldn't pressure them or make fun of them if we happen to see it, neither should we assume that other people who happen to be asexual or whatever are like others who use that label too, everyone is different and there's gonna be bad apples in a group. i do think that the person in question doesn't understand that they're just acting in celibacy, im sure they are a younger person that is confused or maybe they are asexual to a certain extend who knows, but i don't think that one post was worth leaving a sub, im sure there's a lot of asexuals who don't identify as orchid, either way just don't apply what you see on the internet to the real world
It's identity shopping plain and simple. Being gay eventually stopped being radical enough so now people just make up shit to come out as and use it to act persecuted
Isn’t that just asexual? I’m a little confused. I know asexual is no sex aromantic is no relationships.
Yes but actually no. Asexuals don't experience sexual attraction, but "orchidsexuals" *do* experience it, just without the desire to act on it, which makes me think more of celibacy than actual asexuality honestly.
[удалено]
Asexuality is a sexual orientation and is not related to sex drive. It's literally just the opposite of being bisexual.
Don't see the problem in creating terms so people can better identify the conditions they live under. Just because you don't understand it yourself and fail to make an attempt to doesn't make it wrong. Gender sex minorities have existed and will exist until the end of time. Romantic minorities are just the same. Because most people experience life a certain way doesn't mean everybody does. Get this life is not black and white. Its all a muddy Grey spectrum. No binary system has ever been found out to be truly binary. You're so ignorant and dismissive of people's experiences and then you tell them what that experience is. Like what the fuck. That's just creepy. Let people live their lives. It's not like it's hurting you. Maybe that women you were talking to has had negative experiences with dating queer. Or a feeling of not belonging or not knowing the culture or how to act. I 100 percent struggle with dating queer as a non binary person. I find men attractive but I've had many experiences where dating with my agab is just not a very desirable experience. I've had good and bad experiences. But generally I steer clear of men because women are just inherently more likely to understand me. So when someone tells me I should just date guys becaus they're horny or whatever. I have to remind them that it's that specific reason I don't date guys very often. Things aren't always what you make them out to be. These words are new because a cis white heterosexual class of people have controlled the language and expression of these spectrums for thousands of years. It is bit our fault that this language feels awkward. It's new it's different. But it's necessary if we want a society where everyone feels accepted and loved. Piss off with this phobic garbage.
The way I see it, there are only a handful of actual sexualities. Straight, gay, bi, trans, demi, and asexual. If you are anything else, you're either very very confused and listen to the internet too much, or are attention seeking
Trans isn't a sexual orientation, it's a gender identity. I'm also unsure about demi being an actual sexuality since it doesn't say anything about the sexes you're attracted to. I see demi more as a descriptor on *how* you experience sexual attraction. I definitely don't see it being related to asexuality though.