Sexual Fluidity

[Father Heathen]

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'm less sexually fluid now that I'm in a monogomous relationship. I'm still not as into a sexual orientation label as a lot of people because I'm just happy being me. I'm okay with a bisexual label.

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 that's kind of the point. When you're sexually fluid, you're typically a more comfortable, open kind of person, less interested in orientation constructs.

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

Ah, so sexuality fluidity is about how freely one explores or acts upon their orientation rather than an orientation itself, or about disregarding the notion of orientation/sexual identity entirely? It does make a bit more sense in that context.

 

[dawny0826]

So sexuality fluidity is about how freely one explores or acts upon their orientation rather than an orientation itself, or about disregarding the notion of orientation/sexual identity entirely? It makes a bit more sense in that context.

I view it more as the mindset. I don't believe that all people who are quite sexually fluid disregard the notion of a sexual orientation altogether. Some may still be exploring their sexuality and may choose not to identify under the construct of a particular orientation.

Some may identify as a specific orientation but have the comfort level to fluidly bend as per their desires In example, a "heterosexual" man may have a relationship with a man after never having done so before. As a sexually fluid individual, this man may choose to continue to identify as a heterosexual, as a bisexual, as a homosexual or choose to abandon labeling all together.

It's this openness to acting per desire, despite the constructs of labeling, that defines his level of fluidity, in my opinion.

Again, I interpret and present this as more of a mindset. I agree with you, there are already a plethora of labels that probably describe most (but not all) orientations. The person who is more sexually fluid is able to fluidly, flexibly, move as they see fit throughout this "known" spectrum or to disregard the spectrum altogether, as they see fit.

 

[Penumbra]

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'm asking you what's the issue because you're saying that someone that personally identifies as something is wrong about their own identifier, especially without proper reasoning, imo.

It's not like someone is saying "I'm a horse" and you're saying "no, obviously you're a human". Instead, there's a spectrum of sexuality, and a person who is pretty far towards one side is saying "I'm hetero" and you're saying "no, that's bi".

Why?

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

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

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

Bi means two.

Please look at these two posts from earlier in this thread:

I have no problem with other people who identify as "queer" though. I've just always considered myself "bi" because I personally have only ever been attracted to those who identify as cis-female or cis-male, but as they say, "different strokes for different folks." Also...sorry if my last post came across as too blunt.

As for me I'm pansexual, meaning that I can be attracted to a person regardless of their gender identity or biological sex (I like men, women, transgender/transsexual people, etc). I prefer to call myself a queer, though, because it is a more subversive term. I don't like "straight", "gay", "lesbian" and "bisexual" as labels because I feel that they are too limiting. Of course any label is limiting in a way, but if I have to label myself, I prefer one that affords me the most amount of freedom.

So FH, one identifies as bi and is attracted to men and women but is specifically not attracted to trans men or trans women, and the other is attracted to both sexes, plus trans people, plus androgynous people, etc.

That's why words like pansexual, polysexual, and queer, are used sometimes. To describe that difference. When precision is important, there are words available for it.

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

Does "straight" imply that? Says who? The terminology itself, "straight with bi leanings" implies primarily straight. Straight is the central term there.

Again, I direct you to the example of being a vegetarian for a decade and eating meat once on Thanksgiving to spare a mother's feelings. Should that person put qualifiers before saying "yes" when asked if they are vegetarian? Not for any realistic purpose, no. They're vegetarian.

For example when my doctor asked me if I was vegetarian when I was vegetarian for many years, answering "no, I'm an omnivore" because I ate meat once two years prior would have been misleading. Obviously any health aspects of vegetarians he's inquiring about would apply to me, for the purposes of his question.

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

If that link I posted earlier in this thread showing that 51% of women have had a sexual encounter with another woman or would like to is of any merit, quite a number of women are bisexual, according to your terms. Maybe the majority. Realistically that's not the case though; they're apparently much more interested in men, as am I.

Personally, I'm surprised that not more people are open to sexual encounters with either sex. The physical difference between genders is minimal; we're all flesh, muscle, and bone.

Consider a thought experiment where some funny scientific study is being done, and a heterosexual man volunteers, and he's sitting blindfolded while his penis is being manually stimulated by someone he expected was probably a woman. The scientist asks, "Does it feel good?" and he says "yes", and the scientist says "okay, take your blindfold off", and he does, see's that it's actually a man touching him, and suddenly he's entirely turned off, and pushes the guy away.

So what would the issue be in that scenario? Do you think of it as being unrealistic for what many guys would do? Apparently the tactile sensation was okay. But as soon as he mentally linked the tactile sensation with the idea of a man doing it, it went from physically pleasurable to conceptually repulsive, right?

But why? How much of that was a strictly biological response and how much of that was social conditioning? Does he have to be attracted to the man to find the touch pleasurable? Apparently not, at least not until he took the blindfold off. All that he really needs to be is netural towards that man, because neutrality shouldn't disrupt the physical sensation he was feeling, right? But repulsion would.

If he's neutral to that guy, and can continue finding it pleasurable, are you saying that he is bi?

Are you saying that a person is either attracted or repulsed, and that neutrality is in the same category as attraction? Because I wouldn't say that, I'd view that as a spectrum, and neutrality should not be considered attraction, just like it wouldn't be considered repulsion. It's somewhere in the middle.

Now consider what I described again:
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?

Is that description one of attraction, or neutrality? Did she go after other women? Does she seem to consider women as potential life partners? Not really. Looks like neutrality to me. Enough social barriers are removed to find the touch pleasurable, without necessarily feeling an attraction towards the other person. And suppose she wants to return the favor, because she mentally enjoys that person, is grateful for the encounter, found it fairly enjoyable, and wants to please the other woman? Is that attraction? Again, if there are no social barriers, does a person have to be attracted to do that? Or just neutral?

If a woman is attracted to men, and doesn't really think about women or find herself particularly attracted to women, but has enjoyed a sexual experience with a woman once, I don't see any good reason to call her bisexual, and if she advertised herself as bisexual it would be kind of misleading, wouldn't it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Pansexual, polysexual, queer, etc. are sexual identities that involve an explicit rejection of the binary that is implied in "bisexual". Many people under the transgender umbrella such as androgynes, third gendered people, genderqueers, non-gendered people and even some transsexuals do not fit into the binary gender identity/gender expression scheme.

The gender binary, also referred to as gender binarism (sometimes shortened to just binarism),[1][2][3] is the classification of sex and gender into two distinct, opposite and disconnected forms of masculine and feminine. It is one general type of a gender system. As one of the core principles of genderism, it can describe a social boundary that discourages people from crossing or mixing gender roles, or from identifying with third (or more) forms of gender expression altogether. It can also represent some of the prejudices which stigmatize intersex and transgender people, especially those that are genderqueer — individuals who may not always fit neatly into the gender binary.[4]


The term describes the system in which a society splits people into male and female gender roles, gender identities and attributes. Gender role is one aspect of a gender binary. Many societies have used the gender binary to divide and organize people, though the ways this happens differs between societies.

Gender binary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even when looking at biological sex, there are more than two sexes due to intersex conditions.

I am a queer because I reject binary gender schemes as being heterosexist, inherently limiting and devaluing and disrespectful of those whose identities, gender expression and bodies exist outside of such a paradigm as well as not being able to accurately describe the attractions of those like me. "Bisexual" is a term that is a result of a binary gender concept and so I completely reject it.

 

[Badran]

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

Well my application was based on my original understanding of the term. As we've discussed this and as i looked into other resources, i'm not so sure now.

Like i said, my sexual orientation has always been static. It's the same thing, just detailed. At any given point if certain factors are found, i'm almost certain to be sexually stimulated, and the opposite is also true.

But, I do believe that sexual fluidity is more of a mindset than a specific orientation.

That seems to be the case indeed, according to the definitions i've been running into. It's supposedly a state of a flexible sexual orientation.

The concept isn't making much sense to me to be honest, as i think it's oversimplifying the matter, but i'm not sure.

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?

That much i think though is not necessarily a question of fluidity, or a state of a flexible (changing) sexual orientation. For example, my stimulation factors aren't limited. They're defined and static, but they're relatively wide, compared to other men.

So i can be stimulated by some depictions even though i would not particularly get involved in them myself. There are levels of stimulation. For instance, i can be mildly stimulated by some displays even though i would not like to be a part of them personally. I'd be stimulated by the concept, and not so much the details.

Yet that is very different from how a woman's appearance that i like would stimulate me. This isn't because my sexuality shifts focus, rather because it's detailed. Or to word it very differently, less shackled by social influences, perhaps in comparison to others.

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.

If fluidity is what i understand now, of course nobody can become so or change to be so. If it's more along the lines of what i understood originally, then i think someone setting themselves loose of some social influences would make them more fluid.

But of course, like i clarified above i don't think that's what it actually means now.

 

[dawny0826]

Pansexual, polysexual, queer, etc. are sexual identities that involve an explicit rejection of the binary that is implied in "bisexual". Many people under the transgender umbrella such as androgynes, third gendered people, genderqueers, non-gendered people and even some transsexuals do not fit into the binary gender identity/gender expression scheme.

Gender binary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even when looking at biological sex, there are more than two sexes due to intersex conditions.

I am a queer because I reject binary gender schemes as being heterosexist, inherently limiting and devaluing and disrespectful of those whose identities, gender expression and bodies exist outside of such a paradigm as well as not being able to accurately describe the attractions of those like me. "Bisexual" is a term that is a result of a binary gender concept and so I completely reject it.

Thank you for posting this. I acknowledge where I misspoke.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Thank you for posting this.

No problem.

 

[Father Heathen]

Here, I'll boil down my qualm: Claiming to be sexually attracted to both sexes, but rejecting a descriptor that's defined as being sexually attracted to both sexes just doesn't make much sense to me. It's like saying "I'm X and I like X, too, but yet I don't. *giggle*"
I like pizza, but I wouldn't claim not to like pizza just because I don't crave it 24/7.

 

[Badran]

Here, I'll boil down my qualm: Claiming to be sexually attracted to both sexes, but rejecting a descriptor that's defined as being sexually attracted to both sexes just doesn't make much sense to me. It's like saying "I'm X and I like X, too, but yet I don't. *giggle*"

Hey, no need for misrepresentation here. I only giggle when someone tickles me.

Okay, please consider reading Penumbra's last post again, especially the last part, because it covers this extensively. I'll take a stab anyway, but it's essentially covering the same, only going about it slightly differently. Speaking of my case, i do think i qualify for the definition of bisexual. This is not a problem. The problem is that i qualify for others too, and it all gets muddled like hell. So this is in essence a choice of which representation is the most accurate, and easiest to understand to most people. Since these are the contexts that give the label it's primary importance in the first place.

Some definitions of what a heterosexual person is:

Source

Sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex.

Source

sexual feeling or behavior directed toward a person or persons of the opposite sex.

Source

Heterosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary.

Source

a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the opposite sex

Note, they don't actually necessitate a total lack of any possible attraction, stimulation or pleasure possibly being obtained from a different context than what is described, as they're written. Yet, as they're usually understood or used, on the other hand, i'd agree that they might be understood to mean 100% percent attraction to a specific gender, and a lack of pleasure or desire from anything different (which is far too arbitrary in my view, but this is reality to a considerable extent in people's thinking). So, there's a bit of misrepresentation here, at least with some people's understanding of the term. Yet it's only very small in my case. Small to a negligible extent. For all practical purposes, describing me as straight subtracts very little. But let's contrast it against what level of accuracy i would get if i identified differently.

If i added "with bi leanings" to it, or worse, identified outright as a bisexual, means i'm implying that to one considerable level or another i'm actively, or, at least occasionally perhaps, attracted to men, right? These are the definitions of bisexual:

Source

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior toward both males and females

Source

1. Of or relating to both sexes.
1. sexually attracted by both men and women

Source

a person sexually responsive to both sexes; ambisexual.

Source

sexually attracted to both men and women

The first thing to note is that with bisexuality, i had to be selective when copying the definitions, because each source gave a wide umbrella of meanings, some of which where irrelevant here. Now, the above does represent me too, as written. But, when it comes to the understanding it implies (like we did with the first option), i'm only open to the possibility in a very specific set of conditions in the first place, which, in short, is when the person (male or any transgender identity) possesses some characteristics that are more commonly associated with females. So saying i'm bi or straight with bi leanings implies that i'm specifically attracted to both men and women - and that's it - and that both are to a considerable degree (even if they vary very much). Which is not accurate because i'm almost never attracted to men, and when there are exceptions, they do not only apply to men, rather to anybody. So saying i'm bi further confuses the matter. It adds layers of misunderstanding which are harder to clarify than identifying with heterosexuality does.

A third choice is to identify as pansexual. Pansexuality is defined as:

Source

Pansexuality, or omnisexuality,[1] is sexual attraction, sexual desire, romantic love, or emotional attraction toward people of all gender identities and biological sexes.[2]

Source

Pansexual people are people attracted to people regardless of their gender.

Source

1. pansexuality
One who can love sexuality in many forms. Like bisexuality, but even more fluid, a pansexual person can love not only the traditional male and female genders, but also transgendered, androgynous, and gender fluid people.

Source

not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity.

Source

exhibiting or implying many forms of sexual expression

Source

Relating to, having, or open to sexual activity of many kinds.

Source

S: (n) pansexual (a person who participates in (or is open to) sexual activities of many kinds)

Source

A sexual orientation characterized by the potential for aesthetic attraction, romantic love and/or sexual desire for people, regardless of their gender identity or biological sex.

Once more, all this is accurate about me, particularly the last two definitions. But is this how the term is usually understood and more importantly, used? Like the last definition for example? Or is it more along the lines of someone who is gender-blind, or close to being so? Or as someone who while having favorites, is still totally open to all genders or gender identities?

I think it's the latter two, and as such, identifying as pansexual would be very misleading in most contexts. It presents me as a potential mate to many people when in reality i'm not so. Yes, technically i am, but to almost all of them, in truth, i'm actually not. So it doesn't make sense to present it that way.

I might be wrong in my judgments about how each term is commonly understood, but i'm saying that this is what i'm judging based upon. If my understanding is correct, then identifying as heterosexual is the most practical choice, and i can clarify further on my sexuality when needed and when it's relevant.

 

[dawny0826]

Here, I'll boil down my qualm: Claiming to be sexually attracted to both sexes, but rejecting a descriptor that's defined as being sexually attracted to both sexes just doesn't make much sense to me. It's like saying "I'm X and I like X, too, but yet I don't. *giggle*"
I like pizza, but I wouldn't claim not to like pizza just because I don't crave it 24/7.

Think about this from another perspective for a moment. When nineteen, I was quite sexually fluid and identified strongly as a bisexual woman. I was single and open to a relationship with either sex.

I'm now married to a man and in a monogomous relationship, right? So, how does this impact my sexual orientation?

Still naturally attracted to girls. Still naturally attracted to guys. But, something has changed now. I'm no longer open to relationships with either sex. For all intents and purposes, I lead the lifestyle of a heterosexual female. But, I still identify bisexually, because of my natural inclinations.

I like girls. I like guys, but, I don't have a desire anymore to get involved with women. Though I still identify as a bisexual female, would it really be any less accurate, considering my lifestyle, if I were to identify as a heterosexual female instead? How am I much different than the person in your scenario?

 

[Drolefille]

Possibly, we'll see increasing numbers of women becoming sexually fluid, but I think it less likely that we'll see increasing numbers of men becoming sexually fluid. A while back I was reading up on the differences in sexuality between gay men and gay women, and I was struck by how much more frequently women who identified themselves as homosexuals were willing to engage in long-term or committed heterosexual relationships than were men who identified themselves as homosexuals. Some folks concluded from that, and from other lines of evidence, that gay women -- and possibly even women in general -- might typically have a less fixed sexual orientation that gay men, or than men in general.

I don't view sexual fluidity as is itself any more relevant to morality than heterosexuality or any other orientation. That is, I see it as irrelevant.

As a counterpoint to this... although in our society women do indeed appear to be more sexually fluid, in the Roman Empire sexual orientation was entirely different - it wouldn't make sense to call someone homosexual - and the emphasis was on active vs. passive roles. Roman men would have anal sex with adolescents, oral sex with adult men, and vaginal sex with women. As long as they were the "penetrator" in these acts they were "Viri" (real Roman men) and if they weren't they were "soft", "womanly" etc. Similarly the Romans thought that a "dominant" woman, who had sex with other women or "penetrated" the man by way of oral sex was unnatural and had a "monstrous clitoris" (I get the impression Roman men really handled women's sexuality by process of elimination.)

So I'd think that as sexual orientation is very culturally tied, the lack of male sexual fluidity has more to do with the stigma against male-male attraction AND the backlash of considering bisexuality in men as a stepping stone to accepting being gay.

 

[Drolefille]

Pansexual, polysexual, queer, etc. are sexual identities that involve an explicit rejection of the binary that is implied in "bisexual". Many people under the transgender umbrella such as androgynes, third gendered people, genderqueers, non-gendered people and even some transsexuals do not fit into the binary gender identity/gender expression scheme.

Gender binary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even when looking at biological sex, there are more than two sexes due to intersex conditions.

I am a queer because I reject binary gender schemes as being heterosexist, inherently limiting and devaluing and disrespectful of those whose identities, gender expression and bodies exist outside of such a paradigm as well as not being able to accurately describe the attractions of those like me. "Bisexual" is a term that is a result of a binary gender concept and so I completely reject it.

Hey, I just wanted to posit a different understanding of the word "bisexual" and one that helped me understand and use it (when I don't want to explain what being pan means.) Not challenging your identification at all, obviously.

Homo means same and hetero means different, neh? We assume hetero means "opposite" because of how it's used, but it doesn't have to, and as you noted there are not only two genders/sexes to be attracted to. I've seen bisexual used to mean "both same and different." As a cisgendered woman I'd be attracted to women AND <everyone else>.

There is obviously transphobia among bisexuals, but it doesn't have to be inherent in the word. And like a lot of labeling, only communication clarifies what it means to the individual person. Anywho, interested on your thoughts on this.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hey, I just wanted to posit a different understanding of the word "bisexual" and one that helped me understand and use it (when I don't want to explain what being pan means.) Not challenging your identification at all, obviously.

Homo means same and hetero means different, neh? We assume hetero means "opposite" because of how it's used, but it doesn't have to, and as you noted there are not only two genders/sexes to be attracted to. I've seen bisexual used to mean "both same and different." As a cisgendered woman I'd be attracted to women AND <everyone else>.

There is obviously transphobia among bisexuals, but it doesn't have to be inherent in the word. And like a lot of labeling, only communication clarifies what it means to the individual person. Anywho, interested on your thoughts on this.

Interesting take. Never heard it before. It's not immediately apparent how you get that definition from the term, though. "Bi" just connotates two of something.

Sadly, I just call myself bisexual with people I don't feel like explaining myself to.

 

[Drolefille]

Interesting take. Never heard it before. It's not immediately apparent how you get that definition from the term, though. "Bi" just connotates two of something.

Sadly, I just call myself bisexual with people I don't feel like explaining myself to.

It does mean two, in the sense of meaning "both same and different" rather than "both male and female."

I do the same thing, without the sense of dread though I suppose. I get why the term is disliked, I just don't assume that anyone who uses it means it in an exclusionary manner.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It does mean two, in the sense of meaning "both same and different" rather than "both male and female."

I do the same thing, without the sense of dread though I suppose. I get why the term is disliked, I just don't assume that anyone who uses it means it in an exclusionary manner.

I just read too much queer theory writings. Lol.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I just read too much queer theory writings. Lol.

That's okay. My daughter in her free time delves into feminist, queer, and gender studies along with language and cross-cultural studies. It's not surprising that most of the people she feels understands her best are her friends who are transgendered.

To her credit, she has opened my eyes to a whole world of people living in a cis normative society that feel marginalized.

 

[Nada]

If you read what the bible says about sexual immorality, that is the biblical definition.

1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled.Those who are sexually immoral,idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Colossians 3:5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

Galatians 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;

2 Corinthians 12:21 I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.