Creating a whole spectrum of labels seems like the wrong direction - if I'm attracted to someone, that's all there is to it. The rest don't matter, especially if it's about other people's relationships, then all the more so - that's their business, and as long as nobody is getting harmed, then we need to support them.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago

This was a popular mindset when I was a teen. We always said "labels are for soup cans" when it comes to sexuality.

[–] SkyezOpen 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If it's pretty, fuck it. There is no gay.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

don't encourage the weird car dudes who spend more time underneath their car than their partner, they'll get tetanus

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Correction: It's all gay

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

I kinda agree, but also want to offer a different perspective. I agree that the more specific labels are not efficient for communication in most cases, because nobody knows all of them and it's easier to just say who you find attractive.

However, they can still be useful to discover more about yourself. As someone who's aromantic and asexual I've found that many of the labels in the community caused me to ask myself the question "how do I feel about this". Before finding "my" labels I just kinda felt like "nope" about anything related to relationships, but all the more specific labels and spectra have made it much more clear to me what I want and what I don't want. They also provide a way for people to find others with the same experiences as them, which can feel incredibly validating.

These specific labels are a jargon for queer people, they make sense in their context, but are not useful when trying to communicate with most people from outside of the community.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

I agree.

It should be more about who you like, not what people call them/you/your labels/their labels.

I always feel like the labels are there to make the "heteronormative" types feel more comfortable, which isn't really working for them either so.....

I dunno, I'm just a person who likes people who meet criteria that makes my brain release the happy chemicals.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I agree with the "not getting all these labels" but they aren't really for me. I'm not out trying to find someone to date or bang or whatever.

I was having a conversation with some co-workers last week about the difference between bisexual and pansexual. I might have been wrong in my explaination. I'm a straight white man (so my knowledge is limited), but I'm usually more open than my (normally older) co-workers. They didn't understand the need for it, or why it mattered. I said well apparently LGBTQ people had enough interactions to need a new word. If you aren't dating or in that world then you wouldn't understand the need for a more detailed definition of Bi vs Pan.

For the record they just thought it should all be lumped under Bi with no need for an extra trans inclusion word since (in their mind) trans was already included.

[–] Valmond 2 points 7 months ago

I think you are right, but after a milennia of religious obligations to be 1) man or 2) woman and no other couples allowed than 1 + 2, it might help people sort it out.

I mean it's not like a cis man likes all women either.

So in the meantime, before we become an enlightened startrek society, it can come in handy I guess.