Okay, Danny gently ribbing Joe with hetro-erasure humor isnt a given, but isn’t wildly out of character for these two, particularly with Danny in a mellow phase.
Joe’s Dad x anyone: Improbable that Joe’s dad would settle down.
Blaine x anyone: Improbable because he knows Blaine is a piece of shit
Hence Joe’s mom x Amber’s mom is the likeliest result. Him going for Joe’s dad x Blaine is just him getting fixated on the gay part, though.
Okay, so time for another of my awkward, random questions, as I am wont to do when I get doubts about the more woke parts of society, and are (AFAIK) not about me:
Is it possile to be Homosexual yet Heteroromantic?
Yes, with my source being one of my best friend’s sisters…or maybe it was the sister’s husband? I don’t remember the specifics 😛 Either way one of them is not sexually interested in the other, but they love each other romantically. To my understanding they’ve solved it by means of a sexual (though i think not romantic?) relationship with another couple, to fulfill their physical needs that weren’t being met otherwise.
Yes, it is possible. Not the most common thing, but it can occur, and so can being heterosexual but homoromantic. Might not be easy for the individual to pin that down immediately though as their exact labels.
I just think of it as an awareness that other people’s inner and outer realities can be very different from our own, and that means that there can be things routinely affecting their everyday lives that we may not even be aware are things?
For instance, I was born into a female body. I don’t have an issue with this – I’m currently 37 weeks pregnant, having female biology is something I am completely fine with. But I don’t really have a sense of gender identity beyond “I have a female body and have been socialised female and these things are fine” (I’m basically demi-gendered). If I had been born into a different body my life would have been different in several ways – not being eligible for motherhood being a big one, my husband being straight so that relationship probably not happening – but I don’t think it would make much difference to core me or how comfortable I would be in my own skin. Unless I was raised with toxic masculinity rammed down my throat constantly but that’s not how my parents raised my brother or my sister and me (gender was never seen as a factor affecting our abilities, strengths or potentials), and would screw with anybody a bit.
As a result while I fully accept other people’s gender identities really matter to them, and that body dysmorphia, being misgendered etc., can be deeply upsetting for other people and these things are not cool or OK, and a mismatch between mind and body and needing to transition externally to feel comfortable in their own skin is a real thing and of huge importance to people affected by it – I don’t really know what people in that boat MEAN by an internal sense of gender identity.
I kinda figure it’s a little like how being Jewish is important to me, part of how I identify, part of what has shaped my worldview, etc., even though I’m also agnostic. It matters to me, is part of who I am, some people will not be cool with it and there are some spaces where it would put me at risk of physical harm, I completely blew my top at a street proseltizer once who tried to tell me Judaism and Christianity are the same thing – being Christian (or Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Busdhist, Tao, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, or anything else bar harmful-cultist or nasty-extremist flavour of any of the above) is fine, but I am not Christian and I found being told that highly offensive. And I also get that for many people this is a non-factor, or a minor one. (And also recognise that in some ways this is a really poor analogy – it’s generally a lot easier to “pass” in a potentially unsafe space, changing religion may involve one minor surgical procedure but can’t be compared to daily hormone injections and the types of surgery some trans people need to be comfortable in their own skin, and while some people will assume I’m going to Hell for my religious beliefs (a) they think that about a lot of people, so the agnosticism would get the same result, (b) they are unlikely to try to send me there themselves, and (c) they mostly probably don’t think I am a freak, pervert, child molester or should be put down because of it and one of the openly trans people in my friends group has definitely had all of the above levelled at him. And most people recognise religion isn’t cool fodder for jokes but that doesn’t necessarily apply to people’e attitudes towards people who are trans or gender non-conforming…)
That ended up a lot longer than I was expecting it to!
Jamie
It has never occurred to me that “demi-gendered” was a thing and might be a good label to fit onto myself. Thank you! I have something to think about now. And probably read up on.
Yes. Inherently, sexuality is entirely separated from emotional bonds. It’s why open asexual+sexual partnerships can work well, if neither partner has hangups: The relationship is based solely within the bonds between the pair, and the pair has the understanding that sexual desires for the sexual partner can be addressed elsewhere.
Of course, as a more basic example, prostitution is perhaps the most intuitive example of the disconnect between sexual interaction and romantic interest.
As a functional example, consider a bisexual female who finds they prefer male partners for sex and female partners for deeper relationship interactions. The more decisive split of those considerations that your question refers to would simply be that same scenario but with more emphasized feelings toward the distinctions.
Sex as a facet of relationship is tied to the intimacy of the interaction, which is further amplified by social expectations which romanticize and emphasize sex as a key facet of relationships. That form of intimacy is important to most people, and relationships involving more than two individuals are generally to be avoided if at all possible (due to the challenge of making a relationship work even among just two individuals), so where possible, sexuality and romantic interest tend to coincide (even among those with non-heteronormative outlooks).
Basically, as for those pursuing meaningful poly relationships, a split between sexual and romantic involvements is something that’s generally too high effort and too counter-intuitive to normative expectations for many people to consider spending time on.
In short, it’s rare because it’s complicated and atypical, but it’s not impossible, nor is it even unusual when compared to relationship considerations on the whole.
For final consideration, keep in mind that what we consider feminine and masculine traits are generally just physical and societal in nature. In the end, the core of relationships lies within matching to the personality of another human being, which is something the more open sexualities fully appreciate. It’s entirely possible to appreciate cognitive or personality traits that are predominant within one gender, while preferring physical traits representative of another gender.
I’ve got to disagree with your statement about relationships between more than two people being avoided if at all possible. In the absence of jealousy, and in the presence of trust and security, it’s quite possible for a poly relationship web to be stable for years.
Miri
I read it more as HeySo saying most people CBA to put in the work needed to ensure that said web is set up and maintained in a way that all participants are completely happy with, rather than that it can’t/shouldn’t be done?
Honestly I suspect that it wouldn’t necessarily occur to lots of people as a possibility as society does tend to look on two-person couplings as ideal and a lot of people would automatically assume any extensions to that would be less committed/involve breaches of trust. It’s not like poly etiquette is routinely covered in general relationship advice spaces either so people would need to look to educate themselves on it.
HeySo
I’m poly-ace, myself. Miri did a fantastic job elaborating my intended meaning. 🙂
The main issue isn’t even the inherent complexities and societally unsupported nature of poly relationships, it’s- well, it’s in what you yourself noted:
“In the absence of jealousy, and in the presence of trust and security”
Functional relationships are hard enough between two people. Poly relationships have the potential to be stronger and richer and more durable than the standard monogamous framework (due to poly giving a rich network of support, allowing you to benefit from the regular, deep involvement with multiple differing personalities, and due to having a support network not tied to a single individual)- however, poly is an extension of monogomy’s framework, not a simple swap-in alternative to it.
Generally, it’s easier to find a single person who matches you better than anyone else you’ve found, and try to build something meaningful with them, than to divert your attentions into trying to build a relationship with multiple individuals (be that due to a sexual/romantic split, or to more general poly considerations). That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried, if you have the opportunity- it means that most people are not aware it’s an option, and even when they become aware it is, they may not be able to add in another dynamic of that significance to their existing relationship.
More simply put, I was noting that a romantic/sexuality split would imply a need to include a third individual, even if that’s “only” for sex, and thus such interaction would match closely to either the ace+sexual and/or poly relationship frameworks: In other words, both partners need to feel comfortable with including a third individual, even if it’s for casual sex alone.
And, generally when that does happen?
It gets grouped in as a [bi]sexual poly relationship, or as an open [bisexual] relationship. The distinction of romantic and sexual preferences is very unlikely to be emphasized publicly, and may even not be fully clear to the individuals who have such preferences [due to concepts such as bisexuality and open relationships being far more socially familiar].
All that said, my phrasing was incredibly misleading, now that I reread it. Allow me the opportunity to change it to fit my actual intended meaning:
“That form of intimacy is important to most people, and relationships involving more than two individuals are generally to be avoided if at all possible (due to the challenge of making a relationship work even among just two individuals)” –> “That form of intimacy is important to most people, and establishing relationships with more than a single partner is generally something people avoid, unless their preferences or the specific circumstances make establishing such a relationship worth the additional effort”
Of course. In fact, I use the example of the “two lesbians” all the time to explain the difference between cultural and academic accuracies of language.
Two people (I use lesbians for whatever reason), both identify the same way. Both are 100% accurate to that being culturally true for them: they ARE lesbians.
Both are attracted to cisgender women. One is attracted to trans men but not trans women; and the other vice versa. Using academic definitions now, one is “heterosexual biromantic;” the other “bisexual heteroromantic”.
I tend to use this conceptualization to explain that, no matter what the even ACCURATE definitions are (let alone whatever a person mythologizes personally alone in their own head), it would never be appropriate to attempt label a person a way other than the way that they choose to identify. As proof: the lesbians from above. Were one to imply the person who is attracted to trans women is “bisexual” in the cultural identity way, you would not only be wrong, you’d be being a trans-erasing asshole.
So……long-winded way to say: OF COURSE! I’ve spoken of the difference LOTS with people and potential lovers, explaining how being attracted to me or another trans person does not alter who they are in identity…
I wrote a long rant about how I dislike other people asking me to find a label for what I am on scales relevant to them (butch/femme, sm, gender, attraction to …) but not to me but my browser ate it.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but trans women are women. If you’re sexually attracted to trans women, you’re sexually attracted to women. I know lots of lesbians who are sexually attracted to trans women with zero sexual attraction to cis men.
It’s not clear to me why an attraction to trans men but not trans women or vice versa switches one from “heterosexual biromantic” to “bisexual heteroromantic”.
The difference, as I understand it, is between sexual attraction ( and romantic attraction, but you don’t seem to be making that distinction, but some other one that I’m not following.
Mr D
I’m not entirely sure but I THINK it’s because Sex and Gender are, like, Separate, AFAIK, right? Like, Sex is genetic, set in stone, even after going through surgery, genetically speaking you have the same chromosomes.
However, GENDER is a totally different thing, as you can be whatever you identify as, be it Man, Woman, Non-Binary or undecided.
thejeff
Maybe, but I still don’t see how that applies to the given example. There is “attraction”. Where does the distinction between “romantic” and “sexual” come in?
In the given example, where is there romantic attraction without sexual attraction, or vice versa.
Max
I think those were supposed to be sepperate points where they differ, not a description of the same one.
BBCC
That’s a very outdated view of sex as well. Sex, like gender, is a spectrum. There are people who do not fit the biological definition of male or female. We call them intersex when they have congenital differences in hormones, chromosomes, genitalia, or gonads (and, if they’re congenital, in secondary sex characteristics). Differences that aren’t congenital (like with castration) are called sex divergencies. And no, you don’t know what your chromosomes are unless you get a karyotype test done. And HRT can make your hormones near impossible to tell from a cis person’s.
Not to mention you can experiences sexual attraction to someone without knowing anything about their genitalia or chromosomes, so that doesn’t work either.
Felian
In my understanding of the definitions, “homo“ and “hetero“ “gay“ “lesbian“ (and all similar terms) refer to GENDER, not SEX. – at least i think they should, because that’s how they are spoken of: “i’m lesbian“ “oh so you are into women“. Now, i know that the general assumption tends to be “oh, so you like vulvas“ (but people don’t SAY that, they talk about the GENDER of the person. – and if they actually don’t even mean gender, but genitals, i think language needs to change to be clearer)
The term “SEXUAL attraction“ means “who am i interested in having sex with“(mostly used: gender-wise, although i see the term in a broader way than just choosing via gender or sex) more than simply meaning “who has genitals i am attracted to“ – but both play together in defining whether an attractive sexual encounter is likely to happen.
What i think is possible and might be helpful to distinguish, but does not have a word yet (?), is to divide sexual attraction into a) attraction by gender and b) attraction by genitals (or more general: by specific markers of sex, like e.g. body hair / shape of face / voice / …).
I, myself, would like a specific word for “primarily sexually attracted to people who have vulvas (no matter how they identify gender-wise, and no matter whether they were born with the vulva or got one later)“. Queer is a nice term, but often too wide for what i want to specify. But “lesbian“ has a connotation that is partly based on genitals, but also – more commonly – based on gender. So it’s inaccurate…
Also, it is possible to be sexually attracted to the gender / gender expression of a person (as in, “i want to be sexual with you…”) without being attracted to their genitals (“… but can we please do sexual things that don’t involve your breasts / penis / vulva / …“). It’s kinda difficult (like the homoromantic+heterosexual combination is) but at the very least, it exists.
Aouf, I’ve had people pissed at this notion in some parts of the LGBT community in my country.
I’ve seen some dismissing passive-agressive definitions like : “Heteroromantic : man who uses other men for sex but is not above exploiting women for emotional labor” and other stuff like that.
I’ve been guilty of using the terms “homoromantic heterosexual” for a guy I know who will do anything to protect and cherish his rapist best friend but only has sex with women he couldn’t care less about.
So yeah, it’s a thing and it’s being conflated with terrible behavior by its detractors because well, we’re not all ready to deconstruct this part of what we believe about attraction and relationships.
Do we really need to define “predator” in any other terms?
I really couldn’t care less of who other people are attracted to in which way as long as all persons involved have all requiered information and are able to say yes or no or a real “maybe, asked me again in a few”, to any given combination.
And where “no” isn’t a real option, the person insisting is a predator and I don’t care at all what they think of themselves.
What’s kind of cool is I’ve been reading about coparenting and there’s a fair few people who aren’t interested in each other sexually but live together and raise a child together whilst dating other people. They get an emotional and familial need fulfilled by one person but sexual need fulfilled by others. And I’ve read about all sorts. Gay men and straight women, two straight people, gay women and straight men. It’s a clear delineation of romantic, familial and sexual needs. It’s fascinating. And as an asexual person, kind of uplifting.
Is it common to name your car, even if you don’t really are a car freak? I nicknamed mine “whiskey”, because of it’s colour, and it’s one of my favourite alcoholics. It’s also funny, because I drink any kind of alcohol on a rather irregular basis, and if, not much of it, usually.
Valerie
My husband and I have named our cars. The first one was a Ford Focus named Franklin (because that all starts with F). The second one was a Ford Fusion named Fuchsia (because it sounds like “fusion” ). The third car, which is our current car, is another Ford Focus, and we got it from Carmax, so her name is Carma (like Karma).
I honestly don’t care much about cars beyond “oh cool I can transport myself really far in a short amount of time,” but naming them is fun.
tirachokko
lol yeah, same. He came up with it because it’s a periwinkle blue subaru, and i think fam went with it b.c it’s not wrong.
CoMa
Mine’s a Ford fiesta, so I really just refer to the colouring. But you’re both right, it IS kinda fun to think about and simply use the name for my car, mostly because of the reaction I get out of people when using it. 🙂
The friend of a friend’s brother had a small car with a white roof and the rest of it was blue, so they called it “smurf” – the car itself I was told had been really ugly, but with the fitting name, it kinda had more legitimation to be there.
The Chosen One
I think it’s just generally cool to name important things like cars, houses, pets, children etc
187 thoughts on “Step-sister”
Ana Chronistic
This conversation is going better than I expected ?
Clif
What did you expect?
Okay, Danny gently ribbing Joe with hetro-erasure humor isnt a given, but isn’t wildly out of character for these two, particularly with Danny in a mellow phase.
Joy
finally, danny is relatable
Sam
This is not the way I expected this to go but it is so funny and I love it.
Walky_Talky
Someone needs to buy Danny tickets to Gay! A Gay Musical.
kalihahaha
It got some pretty good reviews!
Lexi2
Oh danny
Mr. Mendo
He does try so hard…
0kami
And he gets so far.
Jarin
It’s important to always put in your best effort.
Cryny
But in the end, it doesn’t even matter. 🙁
Arawn
If I link linkin park. . . does this get meta or ironic?
The Chosen One
Moreso if you do so from Lincoln Park
Roborat
While you are parked in a Lincoln.
Br44n5m
And holding a small statue of Lincoln
Amelie
Danny has forgotten straight people exist. College is amazing.
Kheldarson
Or he just can’t conceive Joe’s dad and Amber’s mom together…
Chronos
Has Danny and Amber’s mom met? I know Amber’s talked some about her to Danny
JessWitt
Yes they met when Stacy brought Amber back after she went home to recuperate from fighting off Ryan.
Solarn
I think it’s rather that he doesn’t want to.
Wright
They’re as rare as hen’s teeth, I guess?
I KID I KID.
Jed!
I imagine Danny’s reasoning is:
Joe’s Dad x anyone: Improbable that Joe’s dad would settle down.
Blaine x anyone: Improbable because he knows Blaine is a piece of shit
Hence Joe’s mom x Amber’s mom is the likeliest result. Him going for Joe’s dad x Blaine is just him getting fixated on the gay part, though.
smparadox
That’s how I read it, but I like the different interpretations – they add to the entertainment factor!
dn3s
wouldn’t that be the dream
Fart Captor
I mean, he’s just being realistic
Mr D
Okay, so time for another of my awkward, random questions, as I am wont to do when I get doubts about the more woke parts of society, and are (AFAIK) not about me:
Is it possile to be Homosexual yet Heteroromantic?
Chronos
I don’t see why not
DailyBrad
Probably? I can’t imagine it’s common, but anything’s possible.
Abby Normal
Yes, with my source being one of my best friend’s sisters…or maybe it was the sister’s husband? I don’t remember the specifics 😛 Either way one of them is not sexually interested in the other, but they love each other romantically. To my understanding they’ve solved it by means of a sexual (though i think not romantic?) relationship with another couple, to fulfill their physical needs that weren’t being met otherwise.
Marisa Mockery
That actually sounds ideal to me…
Bec
i believe that’s called compulsory heterosexuality
Liliet
No, dude.
Sam
Yes, it is possible. Not the most common thing, but it can occur, and so can being heterosexual but homoromantic. Might not be easy for the individual to pin that down immediately though as their exact labels.
Foxhack
Well, yeah. It’s how bros are bros. :p
dn3s
whoa this never occurred to me
thejeff
I’d think the bros would be heterosexual but homoromantic. Want sex with women, but close relationships with other guys are more important.
dn3s
im really confused by the whole thing about wokeness but yeah i imagine so
Miri
I just think of it as an awareness that other people’s inner and outer realities can be very different from our own, and that means that there can be things routinely affecting their everyday lives that we may not even be aware are things?
For instance, I was born into a female body. I don’t have an issue with this – I’m currently 37 weeks pregnant, having female biology is something I am completely fine with. But I don’t really have a sense of gender identity beyond “I have a female body and have been socialised female and these things are fine” (I’m basically demi-gendered). If I had been born into a different body my life would have been different in several ways – not being eligible for motherhood being a big one, my husband being straight so that relationship probably not happening – but I don’t think it would make much difference to core me or how comfortable I would be in my own skin. Unless I was raised with toxic masculinity rammed down my throat constantly but that’s not how my parents raised my brother or my sister and me (gender was never seen as a factor affecting our abilities, strengths or potentials), and would screw with anybody a bit.
As a result while I fully accept other people’s gender identities really matter to them, and that body dysmorphia, being misgendered etc., can be deeply upsetting for other people and these things are not cool or OK, and a mismatch between mind and body and needing to transition externally to feel comfortable in their own skin is a real thing and of huge importance to people affected by it – I don’t really know what people in that boat MEAN by an internal sense of gender identity.
I kinda figure it’s a little like how being Jewish is important to me, part of how I identify, part of what has shaped my worldview, etc., even though I’m also agnostic. It matters to me, is part of who I am, some people will not be cool with it and there are some spaces where it would put me at risk of physical harm, I completely blew my top at a street proseltizer once who tried to tell me Judaism and Christianity are the same thing – being Christian (or Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Busdhist, Tao, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, or anything else bar harmful-cultist or nasty-extremist flavour of any of the above) is fine, but I am not Christian and I found being told that highly offensive. And I also get that for many people this is a non-factor, or a minor one. (And also recognise that in some ways this is a really poor analogy – it’s generally a lot easier to “pass” in a potentially unsafe space, changing religion may involve one minor surgical procedure but can’t be compared to daily hormone injections and the types of surgery some trans people need to be comfortable in their own skin, and while some people will assume I’m going to Hell for my religious beliefs (a) they think that about a lot of people, so the agnosticism would get the same result, (b) they are unlikely to try to send me there themselves, and (c) they mostly probably don’t think I am a freak, pervert, child molester or should be put down because of it and one of the openly trans people in my friends group has definitely had all of the above levelled at him. And most people recognise religion isn’t cool fodder for jokes but that doesn’t necessarily apply to people’e attitudes towards people who are trans or gender non-conforming…)
That ended up a lot longer than I was expecting it to!
Jamie
It has never occurred to me that “demi-gendered” was a thing and might be a good label to fit onto myself. Thank you! I have something to think about now. And probably read up on.
HeySo
Yes. Inherently, sexuality is entirely separated from emotional bonds. It’s why open asexual+sexual partnerships can work well, if neither partner has hangups: The relationship is based solely within the bonds between the pair, and the pair has the understanding that sexual desires for the sexual partner can be addressed elsewhere.
Of course, as a more basic example, prostitution is perhaps the most intuitive example of the disconnect between sexual interaction and romantic interest.
As a functional example, consider a bisexual female who finds they prefer male partners for sex and female partners for deeper relationship interactions. The more decisive split of those considerations that your question refers to would simply be that same scenario but with more emphasized feelings toward the distinctions.
Sex as a facet of relationship is tied to the intimacy of the interaction, which is further amplified by social expectations which romanticize and emphasize sex as a key facet of relationships. That form of intimacy is important to most people, and relationships involving more than two individuals are generally to be avoided if at all possible (due to the challenge of making a relationship work even among just two individuals), so where possible, sexuality and romantic interest tend to coincide (even among those with non-heteronormative outlooks).
Basically, as for those pursuing meaningful poly relationships, a split between sexual and romantic involvements is something that’s generally too high effort and too counter-intuitive to normative expectations for many people to consider spending time on.
In short, it’s rare because it’s complicated and atypical, but it’s not impossible, nor is it even unusual when compared to relationship considerations on the whole.
For final consideration, keep in mind that what we consider feminine and masculine traits are generally just physical and societal in nature. In the end, the core of relationships lies within matching to the personality of another human being, which is something the more open sexualities fully appreciate. It’s entirely possible to appreciate cognitive or personality traits that are predominant within one gender, while preferring physical traits representative of another gender.
Chris Phoenix
I’ve got to disagree with your statement about relationships between more than two people being avoided if at all possible. In the absence of jealousy, and in the presence of trust and security, it’s quite possible for a poly relationship web to be stable for years.
Miri
I read it more as HeySo saying most people CBA to put in the work needed to ensure that said web is set up and maintained in a way that all participants are completely happy with, rather than that it can’t/shouldn’t be done?
Honestly I suspect that it wouldn’t necessarily occur to lots of people as a possibility as society does tend to look on two-person couplings as ideal and a lot of people would automatically assume any extensions to that would be less committed/involve breaches of trust. It’s not like poly etiquette is routinely covered in general relationship advice spaces either so people would need to look to educate themselves on it.
HeySo
I’m poly-ace, myself. Miri did a fantastic job elaborating my intended meaning. 🙂
The main issue isn’t even the inherent complexities and societally unsupported nature of poly relationships, it’s- well, it’s in what you yourself noted:
“In the absence of jealousy, and in the presence of trust and security”
Functional relationships are hard enough between two people. Poly relationships have the potential to be stronger and richer and more durable than the standard monogamous framework (due to poly giving a rich network of support, allowing you to benefit from the regular, deep involvement with multiple differing personalities, and due to having a support network not tied to a single individual)- however, poly is an extension of monogomy’s framework, not a simple swap-in alternative to it.
Generally, it’s easier to find a single person who matches you better than anyone else you’ve found, and try to build something meaningful with them, than to divert your attentions into trying to build a relationship with multiple individuals (be that due to a sexual/romantic split, or to more general poly considerations). That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried, if you have the opportunity- it means that most people are not aware it’s an option, and even when they become aware it is, they may not be able to add in another dynamic of that significance to their existing relationship.
More simply put, I was noting that a romantic/sexuality split would imply a need to include a third individual, even if that’s “only” for sex, and thus such interaction would match closely to either the ace+sexual and/or poly relationship frameworks: In other words, both partners need to feel comfortable with including a third individual, even if it’s for casual sex alone.
And, generally when that does happen?
It gets grouped in as a [bi]sexual poly relationship, or as an open [bisexual] relationship. The distinction of romantic and sexual preferences is very unlikely to be emphasized publicly, and may even not be fully clear to the individuals who have such preferences [due to concepts such as bisexuality and open relationships being far more socially familiar].
All that said, my phrasing was incredibly misleading, now that I reread it. Allow me the opportunity to change it to fit my actual intended meaning:
“That form of intimacy is important to most people, and relationships involving more than two individuals are generally to be avoided if at all possible (due to the challenge of making a relationship work even among just two individuals)” –> “That form of intimacy is important to most people, and establishing relationships with more than a single partner is generally something people avoid, unless their preferences or the specific circumstances make establishing such a relationship worth the additional effort”
Hopefully I got it written properly this time. 🙂
whitt
Of course. In fact, I use the example of the “two lesbians” all the time to explain the difference between cultural and academic accuracies of language.
Two people (I use lesbians for whatever reason), both identify the same way. Both are 100% accurate to that being culturally true for them: they ARE lesbians.
Both are attracted to cisgender women. One is attracted to trans men but not trans women; and the other vice versa. Using academic definitions now, one is “heterosexual biromantic;” the other “bisexual heteroromantic”.
I tend to use this conceptualization to explain that, no matter what the even ACCURATE definitions are (let alone whatever a person mythologizes personally alone in their own head), it would never be appropriate to attempt label a person a way other than the way that they choose to identify. As proof: the lesbians from above. Were one to imply the person who is attracted to trans women is “bisexual” in the cultural identity way, you would not only be wrong, you’d be being a trans-erasing asshole.
So……long-winded way to say: OF COURSE! I’ve spoken of the difference LOTS with people and potential lovers, explaining how being attracted to me or another trans person does not alter who they are in identity…
CJ
I wrote a long rant about how I dislike other people asking me to find a label for what I am on scales relevant to them (butch/femme, sm, gender, attraction to …) but not to me but my browser ate it.
Ashley expressed it better than I do anyway:
http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=2045
random queer
I understand what you’re trying to say, but trans women are women. If you’re sexually attracted to trans women, you’re sexually attracted to women. I know lots of lesbians who are sexually attracted to trans women with zero sexual attraction to cis men.
thejeff
It’s not clear to me why an attraction to trans men but not trans women or vice versa switches one from “heterosexual biromantic” to “bisexual heteroromantic”.
The difference, as I understand it, is between sexual attraction ( and romantic attraction, but you don’t seem to be making that distinction, but some other one that I’m not following.
Mr D
I’m not entirely sure but I THINK it’s because Sex and Gender are, like, Separate, AFAIK, right? Like, Sex is genetic, set in stone, even after going through surgery, genetically speaking you have the same chromosomes.
However, GENDER is a totally different thing, as you can be whatever you identify as, be it Man, Woman, Non-Binary or undecided.
thejeff
Maybe, but I still don’t see how that applies to the given example. There is “attraction”. Where does the distinction between “romantic” and “sexual” come in?
In the given example, where is there romantic attraction without sexual attraction, or vice versa.
Max
I think those were supposed to be sepperate points where they differ, not a description of the same one.
BBCC
That’s a very outdated view of sex as well. Sex, like gender, is a spectrum. There are people who do not fit the biological definition of male or female. We call them intersex when they have congenital differences in hormones, chromosomes, genitalia, or gonads (and, if they’re congenital, in secondary sex characteristics). Differences that aren’t congenital (like with castration) are called sex divergencies. And no, you don’t know what your chromosomes are unless you get a karyotype test done. And HRT can make your hormones near impossible to tell from a cis person’s.
Not to mention you can experiences sexual attraction to someone without knowing anything about their genitalia or chromosomes, so that doesn’t work either.
Felian
In my understanding of the definitions, “homo“ and “hetero“ “gay“ “lesbian“ (and all similar terms) refer to GENDER, not SEX. – at least i think they should, because that’s how they are spoken of: “i’m lesbian“ “oh so you are into women“. Now, i know that the general assumption tends to be “oh, so you like vulvas“ (but people don’t SAY that, they talk about the GENDER of the person. – and if they actually don’t even mean gender, but genitals, i think language needs to change to be clearer)
The term “SEXUAL attraction“ means “who am i interested in having sex with“(mostly used: gender-wise, although i see the term in a broader way than just choosing via gender or sex) more than simply meaning “who has genitals i am attracted to“ – but both play together in defining whether an attractive sexual encounter is likely to happen.
What i think is possible and might be helpful to distinguish, but does not have a word yet (?), is to divide sexual attraction into a) attraction by gender and b) attraction by genitals (or more general: by specific markers of sex, like e.g. body hair / shape of face / voice / …).
I, myself, would like a specific word for “primarily sexually attracted to people who have vulvas (no matter how they identify gender-wise, and no matter whether they were born with the vulva or got one later)“. Queer is a nice term, but often too wide for what i want to specify. But “lesbian“ has a connotation that is partly based on genitals, but also – more commonly – based on gender. So it’s inaccurate…
Also, it is possible to be sexually attracted to the gender / gender expression of a person (as in, “i want to be sexual with you…”) without being attracted to their genitals (“… but can we please do sexual things that don’t involve your breasts / penis / vulva / …“). It’s kinda difficult (like the homoromantic+heterosexual combination is) but at the very least, it exists.
Anowan
Aouf, I’ve had people pissed at this notion in some parts of the LGBT community in my country.
I’ve seen some dismissing passive-agressive definitions like : “Heteroromantic : man who uses other men for sex but is not above exploiting women for emotional labor” and other stuff like that.
I’ve been guilty of using the terms “homoromantic heterosexual” for a guy I know who will do anything to protect and cherish his rapist best friend but only has sex with women he couldn’t care less about.
So yeah, it’s a thing and it’s being conflated with terrible behavior by its detractors because well, we’re not all ready to deconstruct this part of what we believe about attraction and relationships.
CJ
Do we really need to define “predator” in any other terms?
I really couldn’t care less of who other people are attracted to in which way as long as all persons involved have all requiered information and are able to say yes or no or a real “maybe, asked me again in a few”, to any given combination.
And where “no” isn’t a real option, the person insisting is a predator and I don’t care at all what they think of themselves.
Pidgey
What’s kind of cool is I’ve been reading about coparenting and there’s a fair few people who aren’t interested in each other sexually but live together and raise a child together whilst dating other people. They get an emotional and familial need fulfilled by one person but sexual need fulfilled by others. And I’ve read about all sorts. Gay men and straight women, two straight people, gay women and straight men. It’s a clear delineation of romantic, familial and sexual needs. It’s fascinating. And as an asexual person, kind of uplifting.
smparadox
“Is it possile to be Homosexual yet Heteroromantic?”
Yes.
DailyBrad
Danny’s got a blue ukelele. Blukele.
tirachokko
unrelated, but that suddenly made me think of the car I share with my dad. My boyfriend has dubbed it the bluberu, and my family went with it.
CoMa
Sounds like a nice name?
Is it common to name your car, even if you don’t really are a car freak? I nicknamed mine “whiskey”, because of it’s colour, and it’s one of my favourite alcoholics. It’s also funny, because I drink any kind of alcohol on a rather irregular basis, and if, not much of it, usually.
Valerie
My husband and I have named our cars. The first one was a Ford Focus named Franklin (because that all starts with F). The second one was a Ford Fusion named Fuchsia (because it sounds like “fusion” ). The third car, which is our current car, is another Ford Focus, and we got it from Carmax, so her name is Carma (like Karma).
I honestly don’t care much about cars beyond “oh cool I can transport myself really far in a short amount of time,” but naming them is fun.
tirachokko
lol yeah, same. He came up with it because it’s a periwinkle blue subaru, and i think fam went with it b.c it’s not wrong.
CoMa
Mine’s a Ford fiesta, so I really just refer to the colouring. But you’re both right, it IS kinda fun to think about and simply use the name for my car, mostly because of the reaction I get out of people when using it. 🙂
The friend of a friend’s brother had a small car with a white roof and the rest of it was blue, so they called it “smurf” – the car itself I was told had been really ugly, but with the fitting name, it kinda had more legitimation to be there.
The Chosen One
I think it’s just generally cool to name important things like cars, houses, pets, children etc
Chronos
I really want to believe Danny’s messing with Joe. I really do
Stephen Bierce
“Nobody is as dumb as HE seems!”–The Count in Doctor Who, “City of Death”
butting
He’s like just a few whiskers from being Hobbes in panels 2 & 6.
Chronos
That’s it: Danny’s just a figment of Joe’s imagination. All the relationship storylines involving Danny have been all Joe.
Reltzik
So, wait. It’s a Fight Club thing where Joe(‘s alternate) was dating Amber’s alternate?
DIDN’T DICK-DAD JUST WARN HIM NOT TO DO THAT???
Woobie
Figment? Hobbes is REAL.
Chronos
Well, now I just imagine Joe carrying around a Danny Doll complete with that hat and a mini ukelele. I don’t think this image is improving…
butting
*steeples fingers*
EX-cellent…