I was reading a discussion on another site where a girl was saying that she's a "real" bisexual -- in her words, this means someone who doesn't just grope other girls in bars to turn on the guys watching from the shadows at the bar, but a real, true, actually-likes-girls-too bisexual.

OK, no problem, I'm not particularly judgmental about whatever it is that people are attracted to, unless it involves llamas or pastry or something.

But some of the other people in the discussion seemed baffled by the whole concept. "How can you like A as much as B?" -- that sort of thing. I find it interesting that people can't grasp the idea that other people might actually have different perspectives or values or preferences.

And I got to thinking that, when we have to designate some sort of orientation for ourselves, on a dating site, or a job application, or an Arby's coupon, or whatever, how accurate is that?

I mean, yes, I realize that 99.2% of all women believe that a straight guy exists solely for the purpose of having sex with anything in a skirt, up to and including a mildly effeminate Scotsman in a kilt, which is about as far as I want to go with this example.

But is it true?

See, I have always designated myself as "straight" whenever called upon to declare this sort of thing, and I do that because I'm just not attracted to men. Well, maybe Floyd from The Andy Griffith Show, but he's dead.

But I'm not really attracted to most women, either.

So, the terms "straight" or "heterosexual," while technically correct, really don't address all the subtle nuances involved in the rich tapestry that is one's own distinct, unique, individual preference....

So, I'm thinking we need more labels to more efficiently describe what we're REALLY looking for.

Because "heterosexual" and "homosexual" really just mean 50% of everybody, one way or the other.

But I'm having a hard time coming up with a good name for my own particular preferential leanings, especially since it would need to use a Latin root (like "homo-" or "hetero-," and my Latin is a little rusty), and I am only attracted to two very different and very distinct types, neither of which has (as far as I know) any sort of specified-orientation-based-descriptor or a Latin root.

So, for now, I shall just classify myself as "shallowsexual." It's not perfect but it's honest.

I like that word, "shallowsexual." I think it fits me, too.

I agree with a point you made, about people thinking since you're straight or gay that you're attracted to everything of that particular gender, that's stupid. I don't find all men attractive, in fact, I find very few men attractive. It's like when someone finds out someone is gay and they get all paranoid and think the person is going to hit on them or assault them, simply because of their gender. There are other facets to attraction.

Interesting thread, and I like the mention of pastry; I still don't have any PopTarts, darnit.....

I'm a papersexual

the only one that turns me on is papersmile

Hey now, don't knock Scots and kilts. I love a man in a kilt! Especially if he's got the legs and body for it. Commando!

I think we're too hung up on it meaning EXACTLY one or the other. There's plenty of variations in between with out it being an issue. And short of those who rabidly claim to be one way or the other with the whole hellfire and brimstone tossed in with it, I never got the point of making such a fuss over it.

I still want to know why they don't wear undies with the kilt? You can't see panty lines or anything, so why?

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with bagpipes.

So what is the second type?
Floyd being the first..

I don't think being unattracted to someone makes one shallow.
Unless you have matriculated through half the western world.
Nothing wrong with being picky. Or astute. Or particular.
Except.
The loneliness.

I do like "shallowsexual" as it seems to capture your state of mind.
Very clever. The exact opposite of what you mean.
You are not a Hal are you? Tooo easy..

picayunesexual? I like yours better..
Thank heaven you can catch Floyd in reruns, eh?
Waiting for all the lexsexuals to show up :-)

Easy access...

Seriously, it's a chafing issue, and Scotland has this whole issue with midges which are nasty little bugs like no-see-ums.

But wouldn't undies keep the bugs out? Seems like not wearing them would only make their stuff easier to be bitten.

Hope not. You have to like looking at the person, if you are going to talk to them face to face. And even a picture helps there.

If that's shallow, that's really too bad. I may prefer brains over looks, but if it's supposed to be anything serious over and beyond friendship, I still have enjoy looking at them day in and day out.

Loneliness - I'll take that over unhappiness with someone. :-(

Not really. With Scotland as damp as it is, it brings up crotch-rot issues, which can be worsened with the bugs.

Most of the time even the stuff women wore wasn't undies like we think of them. They were real loose and flowing and not close to the skin either.

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm maybe they like there bagpipe swinging to the music

I have had enough "labels" to deal with in my lifetime.

JMO

Well, I certainly won't complain! Especially if they know how to use their bagpipes...

And I meant musically.

Rarus-Sexual.....

Meaning Rare/Uncommon...what about that Lex?

Oh, I don't think I want to get into that here. I catch enough flak already for being "intimidating" and "complicated." Maybe I'll just put something about it on my website, and if anybody is THAT interested, they can go look....!



I agree with you, BUT I've noticed a tendency for SOME people to take it very personally if they're not included in the preferences parameters. They seem to feel that I'm deliberately discriminating against them, personally, as if I designed my own preferences solely for the purpose of excluding them, as individuals, from the mix. A little "cart-before-the-horse" thinking there.



Well, I like to do the irony thing sometimes. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I don't personally consider myself shallow, but I realize that a lot depends on a person's interpretation of the term. My "selective" is almost inevitably someone else's "shallow" and "superficial." And I'm OK with that.



They've done an outstanding job of hiding up till now....!

I like it as a general term.

Now, the thing that comes up here is that there will be different kinds of "rare."

Being attracted to a woman dressed up as a giant burrito is rare, but perhaps not the same kind of rare as what the next person likes....!

incomplete post

Well in that case we are going to need a really, really big list...that is if you want to classify every-thing that someone might find attractive..being that there is many aspects of an individual...nearly unlimited combination's that's just the physical aspect. The other would have to take into consideration the other persons personality as well. This list would be really big...say supposed you like a girls with black hair and green eyes would you have to say

saeta-niger-oculus-viridis-Sexual?

The list as you can see could get a bit extreme

I am straight up buy-sexual.

I got no problem paying for it. (deny it all you want fellas....in the end....we all pay for sex.......oh God do we pay!)