Sexual Fluidity

[Father Heathen]

Might help to take the words of the writer of the article into consideration.

"Adèle is sexually fluid, a person who dabbles with either sex but unlike a bisexual, identifies as gay or straight."

Why would I take it into consideration after already establishing why it's a ridiculous notion?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is a cool article that some may be interested in: genderlanguage

 

[dawny0826]

There is a difference between not being restricted by a label and between finding irrelevant.

The heterosexual label is relevant because it describes what is almost entirely the case, but it is not sufficient.

Neither is bisexual, since it is incredibly misleading in this case. Added labels or clarifications are required in both cases, thus it makes more sense to go with what describes the vast majority of your attraction reality.

IOW, fluid heterosexual rather than bisexual leaning towards one gender or the other.

Chapin says this in the article, linked in the OP:

Sexual fluidity is a wonderful thing both sexes should be able to enjoy. It’s a freeing idea that instead of choosing a sexual label and sticking to it you can let yourself be ruled entirely by desire. It will take time and a collective open-mindedness to reverse entrenched notions of sexuality, but I have faith that in a few decades, a new generation’s version of Brokeback Mountain could have a much happier ending.

It's suggested that labels not be chosen and stuck with and instead, that men and women allow themselves to be ruled by desire.

So, one becomes sexually fluid, as opposed to or in addition to being gay, straight, bisexual, homosexual.

I'm not discounting the relevance of labeling. It is the very concept of sexual fluidity that questions the need for sexual labeling as it frees the individual from considering such labeling when acting upon desire.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm of the seemingly obnoxious opinion that a person's sexual orientation is something they are either born with or develop during the very early years of their lives. I also believe a person's sexual orientation is either unchangeable or, at the very most, extraordinarily difficult to alter. So, for instance, a homosexual man might marry a heterosexual woman, but that's not at all likely to change him into a heterosexual.

Last, I happen to believe that humans are basically primates and primates are naturally curious creatures -- especially, it seems, when it comes to sex.

Consequently, I have very little difficulty believing that at least some of us alarmingly imaginative apes might just be curious enough to now and then boing boing with folks who we are not actually sexually oriented to. And if and when such frolics happen, I am quite convinced such frolics in no way alter or change a person's sexual orientation. Not even by 1%.

 

[Penumbra]

Aren't we missing the point? To apply this to the logic of sexual fluidity...

The vegan isn't really a vegan because the label is irrelevent. (Free eater, come on, now.) The vegan is a fluid eater, who eats what they want, dabbling here and there, without worry as to label.

Omni-curious (as in omnivore).

So when someone is planning on inviting you over for dinner and is thoughtful enough to ask, "are you a vegetarian?" you can go "I'm omni-curious." And of course they'll say, "what?" and then you get to spend extra words explaining yourself about how you ate meat once 3 years ago.

Even pretty strict vegans may on rare occasions consume an animal product, like some medicine that happened to have some animal component in it, or something. In Scott Pilgrim, the vegan had three strikes before the vegan police took his vegan powers away.

I was a vegetarian for about a decade until I eventually stopped and became a pescetarian. But like, there was once during my veggie years where I flew across the country to visit my mother on Thanksgiving that I hadn't seen for many years and she's like "I have a big turkey we'll cook today. I don't normally eat turkey on Thanksgiving, it's really expensive, but I got it because you were coming! I hope you like it!" and so I thought, "oh crap, she doesn't know I don't eat meat". So I made an exception and ate a little bit of turkey because it would have gone to waste, it's not like it tasted bad or anything, and it just wasn't worth being a fundamentalist about. You gotta pick your battles, right?

That's an instance where labeling myself more quickly would have been helpful, actually. Labels can be useful.

Or like, I went for a check-up, and the doctor asked me if I was vegetarian and I said "yes", because in many years I had eaten meat like once. I'm not going to ramble on about how "technically that's complicated, because a couple of years ago on Thanksgiving..."

So if someone asks me if I'm hetero, I'll say "yes", not "well its technically complicated, usually I like guys but there was this one girl in freshman year and we kinda...."

I was a vegetarian, and a rather strict one, but not a veggie fundamentalist. And I'm basically heterosexual, but not a hetero fundamentalist!

 

[Badran]

Chapin says this in the article, linked in the OP:



It's suggested that labels not be chosen and stuck with and instead, that men and women allow themselves to be ruled by desire.

So, one becomes sexually fluid, as opposed to or in addition to being gay, straight, bisexual, homosexual.

I'm not discounting the relevance of labeling. It is the very concept of sexual fluidity that questions the need for sexual labeling as it frees the individual from considering such labeling when acting upon desire.

Note it says:

"instead of choosing a sexual label and sticking to it you can let yourself be ruled entirely by desire."

Meaning, i don't think it's saying do not choose a sexual label, rather do not be restricted by your choice as to your sexual label. As while it's helpful, efficient and for the most part accurate (unless you picked the wrong label ), it is most certainly not sufficient.

 

[dawny0826]

So when someone is planning on inviting you over for dinner and is thoughtful enough to ask, "are you a vegetarian?" you can go "I'm omni-curious." And of course they'll say, "what?" and then you get to spend extra words explaining yourself about how you ate meat once 3 years ago.

Even pretty strict vegans may on rare occasions consume an animal product, like some medicine that happened to have some animal component in it, or something. In Scott Pilgrim, the vegan had three strikes before the vegan police took his vegan powers away.

I was a vegetarian for about a decade until I eventually stopped and became a pescetarian. But like, there was once during my veggie years where I flew across the country to visit my mother on Thanksgiving that I hadn't seen for many years and she's like "I have a big turkey we'll cook today. I don't normally eat turkey on Thanksgiving, it's really expensive, but I got it because you were coming! I hope you like it!" and so I thought, "oh crap, she doesn't know I don't eat meat". So I made an exception and ate a little bit of turkey because it would have gone to waste, it's not like it tasted bad or anything, and it just wasn't worth being a fundamentalist about. You gotta pick your battles, right?

That's an instance where labeling myself more quickly would have been helpful, actually. Labels can be useful.

Or like, I went for a check-up, and the doctor asked me if I was vegetarian and I said "yes", because in many years I had eaten meat like once. I'm not going to ramble on about how "technically that's complicated, because a couple of years ago on Thanksgiving..."

So if someone asks me if I'm hetero, I'll say "yes", not "well its technically complicated, usually I like guys but there was this one girl in freshman year and we kinda...."

I was a vegetarian, and a rather strict one, but not a veggie fundamentalist. And I'm basically heterosexual, but not a hetero fundamentalist!

I think there's been some misunderstanding somewhere, because, we're with you.

The vegan who eats meat once in my opinion is still a vegan, unless they longer identify as vegan.

 

[dawny0826]

Note it says:

"instead of choosing a sexual label and sticking to it you can let yourself be ruled entirely by desire."

Meaning, i don't think it's saying do not choose a sexual label, rather do not be restricted by your choice as to your sexual label. As while it's helpful, efficient and for the most part accurate (unless you picked the wrong label ), it is most certainly not sufficient.

Instead of choosing a sexual label, what would you be doing? Foregoing one, perhaps?

Boils down to interpretation, I suppose.

 

[Father Heathen]

So when someone is planning on inviting you over for dinner and is thoughtful enough to ask, "are you a vegetarian?" you can go "I'm omni-curious." And of course they'll say, "what?" and then you get to spend extra words explaining yourself about how you ate meat once 3 years ago.

Even pretty strict vegans may on rare occasions consume an animal product, like some medicine that happened to have some animal component in it, or something. In Scott Pilgrim, the vegan had three strikes before the vegan police took his vegan powers away.

I was a vegetarian for about a decade until I eventually stopped and became a pescetarian. But like, there was once during my veggie years where I flew across the country to visit my mother on Thanksgiving that I hadn't seen for many years and she's like "I have a big turkey we'll cook today. I don't normally eat turkey on Thanksgiving, it's really expensive, but I got it because you were coming! I hope you like it!" and so I thought, "oh crap, she doesn't know I don't eat meat". So I made an exception and ate a little bit of turkey because it would have gone to waste, it's not like it tasted bad or anything, and it just wasn't worth being a fundamentalist about. You gotta pick your battles, right?

That's an instance where labeling myself more quickly would have been helpful, actually. Labels can be useful.

Or like, I went for a check-up, and the doctor asked me if I was vegetarian and I said "yes", because in many years I had eaten meat like once. I'm not going to ramble on about how "technically that's complicated, because a couple of years ago on Thanksgiving..."

So if someone asks me if I'm hetero, I'll say "yes", not "well its technically complicated, usually I like guys but there was this one girl in freshman year and we kinda...."

I was a vegetarian, and a rather strict one, but not a veggie fundamentalist. And I'm basically heterosexual, but not a hetero fundamentalist!

So in other words, diet is a bad analogy for sexuality.
Also, are you suggesting that people's sexuality can shift? I.e. not a choice, of course, but not always static?

 

[Penumbra]

I think there's been some misunderstanding somewhere, because, we're with you.

I assume by we're you mean yourself and Father Heathen?

I asked him if a person who ate meat once in a ten year period can't be considered a vegan and he said "omni-curious (as in omnivore)" and you agreed.

And then I brought up the Kinsey scale, the multi-point spectrum between pure heterosexuality and pure homosexuality, and then went onto talk about being pretty far on the hetero side but not like all the way on the end, and FH said "bisexual with a strong leaning toward one gender over the other", and I do not use bisexual as descriptor because it would be misleading, for the most part.

So there does seem to be some disagreement on terms, atm.

 

[Penumbra]

So in other words, diet is a bad analogy for sexuality.

Or it's a good analogy and the conclusion of what we just talked about is what I was saying, because I think being fundamentalist about applying labels isn't worth it, and my point is that sexuality is more like a spectrum than three categories. Technically it's like a set of multiple spectra because there also could be a descriptor for how monogamous/promiscuous a person is, or a descriptor for how intense their libido is, or other things like being attracted to non-binary people or being asexual, but if we're being simple then we're just talking about sexual orientation, which sex a person likes, then we can say it's a spectrum.

And if I had to label the basic spectrum of sexual orientation for practical purposes (like being asked "are you bi?" which I have been asked), I'd probably say the left third of the spectrum is homo, the central third is bi, and the right third is hetero, rather than saying that the middle 98% is bi and only the two absolute ends are homo and hetero.

Also, are you suggesting that people's sexuality can shift? I.e. not a choice, of course, but not always static?

I think the evidence is pretty clear that within a small margin, one's sexual orientation is pretty constant through life and has a biological component to it.

I do think there is a social element to it that modulates it, though. For example, I posted statistics earlier about women having a much greater tendency to experiment with other women than for men to experiment with other men. Now is that a biological difference, or is it because men are conditioned to be more repulsed by other men in that regard? I'm not sure, although I'd learn towards the latter.

And that social portion of it can change over time, with new ideas or new experiences. So if someone has all sorts of negative baggage attached to their view of sex that eventually goes away for some reason, then they might see that their orientation is a little bit more flexible than they thought. Or if they try something that didn't seem all that interesting and it turned out they liked it more than they thought they would (which happened to me), then one might look at it a bit differently.

Personally, I've always been a bit curious as to what it would feel like to be repulsed by all people of a certain sex. For a lot of guys, and some women, the thought of being with a member of the same sex is not just uninteresting, but actually repulsive.

 

[Father Heathen]

Or it's a good analogy and the conclusion of what we just talked about is what I was saying, because I think being fundamentalist about applying labels isn't worth it, and my point is that sexuality is more like a spectrum than three categories.

That doesn't conflict with what I've said, although it's probably easier to slice it up as "strait", "strait with bi leanings", "bi with strait leanings", "bi", "bi with gay leanings", "gay with bi leanings", "gay". Or "asexual".

Technically it's like a set of multiple spectra because there also could be a descriptor for how monogamous/promiscuous a person is, or a descriptor for how intense their libido is,

Not really relevant to sexual preference.

or other things like being attracted to non-binary people or being asexual, but if we're being simple then we're just talking about sexual orientation, which sex a person likes.

What do you mean by "non-binary"? Transsexual? Androgynous? The former I would go with what they identify as. A guy attracted to a transwoman is still strait, for example.
Androgynous partner, I guess bi-ish?

I think the evidence is pretty clear that within a small margin, one's sexual orientation is pretty constant through life and has a biological component to it.

So if the attraction/desire is still there, wouldn't it be dishonest to adopt a label that suggests otherwise?

I do think there is a social element to it that modulates it, though. For example, I posted statistics earlier about women having a much greater tendency to experiment with other women than for men to experiment with other men. Now is that a biological difference, or is it because men are conditioned to be more repulsed by other men in that regard? I'm not sure, although I'd learn towards the latter.

I think cultural attitude, social pressure, etc. influences how people identify and what they act upon. They may keep it buried and hidden, even from themselves, but it's still there.

 

[Badran]

Instead of choosing a sexual label, what would you be doing? Foregoing one, perhaps?

Of course, but by proposing it as such you're ignoring the rest of the sentence as well as the rest of the article. As provided at the beginning of the article and in the OP, it already proposes that:

Adèle is sexually fluid, a person who dabbles with either sex but unlike a bisexual,identifies as gay or straight.

So the concept of fluidity, as proposed, does not preclude adopting a label by any form of necessity. Rather, like i said, not being restricted by it.

In that sentence you quoted in particular, it goes on to add "and sticking to it", and proposes an alternative of living according to how one feels, letting desire dictate what should be done in this regard.

This concept in general, if i'm understanding it correctly addresses both the sexual complexities as well as the development of orientation. It provides a more fitting description to people who do not fall neatly in one category or the other.

Boils down to interpretation, I suppose.

Naturally.

 

[Badran]

I'm looking into other sources besides the OP's article, in attempt to find a generally concrete definition or understanding, and unfortunately i can't say i've found any. They were mostly unreliable sources, and the most common theme i've run into seems to be the one found at Wiki:

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime."[2] The American Psychological Association states "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."[1] "For some [people] the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span..."[38] At least one study suggests that self-reported sexual orientation in a community may change over time in response to differing social trends.[39] In a joint statement with other major American medical, psychology, educator, and religious organizations, the APA says that "different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual."[40] A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."[41] "There... [was, as of 1995,] essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span... It [was]... still an unanswered question whether... [the] measure [of 'the complex components of sexual orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one point in time'] will predict future behavior or orientation. Certainly, it [was]... not a good predictor of past behavior and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians (i.e., denial of homosexual interests and heterosexual experimentation prior to the coming-out process)."[42]

If there's any accuracy to all that, it's significantly different than what i understood from the OP's article, and it isn't really a description i can relate to. My sexual orientation hasn't been dynamic.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I guess you could say that there has been some fluidity in the intensity of my attractions in various periods of my life. In my early 20's I was much more attracted to women than men, though I was still attracted to men. That fire I'd feel was toward women, with whom I primarily dated and had relationships with, even though I still enjoyed dating men.

The intensity shifted toward men after I was first married, and stayed until I divorced and remarried. I was still more interested in women than men when I met and married my first husband, and then I found myself more attracted to men than women after that. Both my first husband and my current husband have learned that my orientation is nothing like the fantasy they were familiar with.

In the last several months, I've felt once again my attractions swing heavily toward women again. It isn't that I'm not attracted to my husband - I am, very much so, and we remain intimate. But my antennae perk up when an attractive woman appears more so nowadays than an attractive man.

What makes these shift, I'm not sure. My best guess is a hormonal shift, but other than that, I got nothing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I guess you could say that there has been some fluidity in the intensity of my attractions in various periods of my life. In my early 20's I was much more attracted to women than men, though I was still attracted to men. That fire I'd feel was toward women, with whom I primarily dated and had relationships with, even though I still enjoyed dating men.

The intensity shifted toward men after I was first married, and stayed until I divorced and remarried. I was still more interested in women than men when I met and married my first husband, and then I found myself more attracted to men than women after that. Both my first husband and my current husband have learned that my orientation is nothing like the fantasy they were familiar with.

In the last several months, I've felt once again my attractions swing heavily toward women again. It isn't that I'm not attracted to my husband - I am, very much so, and we remain intimate. But my antennae perk up when an attractive woman appears more so nowadays than an attractive man.

What makes these shift, I'm not sure. My best guess is a hormonal shift, but other than that, I got nothing.

I know what that is like. Sometimes I'm more into women and others, more interested in men. I don't know why that happens, either.

 

[Penumbra]

That doesn't conflict with what I've said, although it's probably easier to slice it up as "strait", "strait with bi leanings", "bi with strait leanings", "bi", "bi with gay leanings", "gay with bi leanings", "gay". Or "asexual".

Then using your terminology I would be "strait with bi leanings", as in, straight/hetero, which is what I said, so what's the issue?

What do you mean by "non-binary"? Transsexual? Androgynous? The former I would go with what they identify as. A guy attracted to a transwoman is still strait, for example.
Androgynous partner, I guess bi-ish?

I had genderqueer or androgynous people in mind when writing that, not specifically trans men or women, because trans men and trans women often are part of the binary. Bi means two, which would therefore not be linguistically accurate to describe oneself if interested in genderqueer or androgynous people, and is why terms like polysexual, pansexual, or queer are generally used by some people to describe their sexual orientation, including saint_frankenstein in this thread.

And the majority of trans people have their original sex organs, so I guess to people that place a lot of emphasis on genitalia, it could be considered a non-binary encounter too, since their gender identity may be firmly on one side but their body may still be sort of mixed.

I've not been with any trans guys but as far as my sexual orientation is concerned I see no difference between trans guys and other guys so I agree, it doesn't change the hetero/homo label, and I would consider it binary, which is why I was thinking more along the lines of actually genderqueer or androgynous identified people when saying "non-binary".

So if the attraction/desire is still there, wouldn't it be dishonest to adopt a label that suggests otherwise?

Not according to your description as straight with bi leanings. That would be straight.

Besides, how are we defining attraction/desire? Hypothetically, if a woman never thinks about other women when masturbating, and when she sees beautiful women she thinks "meh", but if she slept with a woman that pursued her and did enjoy it quite a bit and then went back to focusing on guys, are we calling that attraction/desire? Wouldn't "bi" be a misleading term there?

I think cultural attitude, social pressure, etc. influences how people identify and what they act upon. They may keep it buried and hidden, even from themselves, but it's still there.

A lot more men than women seem genuinely repulsed by the thought of being sexual with a member of the same sex.

I think social influences are strong enough to push someone from being "neutral" about a person to being "repulsed" about a person, sexually.

 

[dawny0826]

Of course, but by proposing it as such you're ignoring the rest of the sentence as well as the rest of the article. As provided at the beginning of the article and in the OP, it already proposes that:

Adèle is sexually fluid, a person who dabbles with either sex but unlike a bisexual,identifies as gay or straight.

So the concept of fluidity, as proposed, does not preclude adopting a label by any form of necessity. Rather, like i said, not being restricted by it.

In that sentence you quoted in particular, it goes on to add "and sticking to it", and proposes an alternative of living according to how one feels, letting desire dictate what should be done in this regard.

This concept in general, if i'm understanding it correctly addresses both the sexual complexities as well as the development of orientation. It provides a more fitting description to people who do not fall neatly in one category or the other.

Naturally.

I can understand why you've applied the term sexual fluidity to yourself.

But, I do believe that sexual fluidity is more of a mindset than a specific orientation. In fact, most people who consider themselves to be very sexually fluid people aren't as concerned with descriptors for their sexual orientation as they are open to changing as it suits their desire.

The article described how women are more sexually fluid beings. Men, on the other hand are, statistically, less sexually fluid. In tests, men weren't physically stirred as often by sexual images that didn't depict their own sexual pereferences, while women were more apt to being sexually stirred by all kinds of sexual images. The question raised in the article - is this socially driven? biological? both? Wouldn't it be great if more people were more sexually fluid, and were less restricted by orientation labels? Wouldn't this be more enjoyable for men and women alike?

However, you can't force someone to be more or less sexually fluid. We can, as societies, certainly, continue to navigate towards more open and accepting practices, but, men, as a larger percentage, will likely continue to be less sexually fluid than women, as this fluidity is partially contingent upon natural biology as our very sexual orientation is very much contingent upon natural wiring.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Father Heathen]

Then using your terminology I would be "strait with bi leanings", as in, straight/hetero, which is what I said, so what's the issue?

Why would you ask me "what's the issue"? That question should be directed at those who have irrational hang-up over pre-existing (and adequate) terminology, and who want to make use of pointless, unnecessary, and inaccurate terms like "sexual fluidity". As you've admitted yourself, sexual orientation really isn't something that shifts or changes, you either are always X or you're not. So what's exactly is "fluid" about that? You can't convince someone to be bi if they have no pre-existing inclination.

I had genderqueer or androgynous people in mind when writing that, not specifically trans men or women, because trans men and trans women often are part of the binary. Bi means two, which would therefore not be linguistically accurate to describe oneself if interested in genderqueer or androgynous people,

They possess qualities of both genders, and a bisexual is attracted to both genders, so why would that be inaccurate?

and is why terms like polysexual, pansexual, or queer are generally used by some people to describe their sexual orientation, including saint_frankenstein in this thread.

I still don't understand why those terms aren't interchangeable with bisexual?

And the majority of trans people have their original sex organs, so I guess to people that place a lot of emphasis on genitalia, it could be considered a non-binary encounter too, since their gender identity may be firmly on one side but their body may still be sort of mixed.

Again, if that aspect is part of their attraction, then I guess something from "bi" to "heterosexual with bi leanings" would apply.

Not according to your description as straight with bi leanings. That would be straight.

No, straight with bi leanings would be strait with bi leanings. Simply "straight" implies a total lack of bi leanings.

Besides, how are we defining attraction/desire? Hypothetically, if a woman never thinks about other women when masturbating, and when she sees beautiful women she thinks "meh", but if she slept with a woman that pursued her and did enjoy it quite a bit and then went back to focusing on guys, are we calling that attraction/desire? Wouldn't "bi" be a misleading term there?

Again, orientation is orientation regardless of what they focus/act upon or even acknowledge, right?

 

[dawny0826]

FH, I view sexual fluidity as more of a mindset. You are not a sexually fluid human being. You identify quite well with your orientation and are quite comfortable as a heterosexual male with no interest to move beyond those boundaries.

I have been sexually fluid in my mindset when single. Though I identified as bisexual and was bisexual from an organic/biological perspective, I was open to fluidly exploring relationships without regard to orientation.

To the contrary, the person who is sexually fluid may have a changing orientation from the perspective that they aren't embracing a specific orientation at all. They can comfortably and fluidly adapt, contingent upon their relationships and encounters.

There's no way in hell that you would have been able to approach sexual relationships in such a way. I did at one point.

I think you are right that from a biological and organic level, most people who are more sexually fluid are probably bisexual. But, they may not identify as such. And straight and homosexual people can also be sexually fluid too.

The point is, if you're sexually fluid, you're typically more comfortable and open with your sexuality, without allowing orientation constructs to restrict your choices and your preferences may change over time.

Men, as per the article, particularly heterosexual men, tend to be less open to this mindset, thus being less sexually fluid.