all 17 comments

[–]CaptainMooseEx-Bathhouse Employee 40 insightful - 1 fun40 insightful - 0 fun41 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In my opinion, separating romantic and sexual attraction has been embraced because it stabilizes opposite-sex relationships while destabilizing same-sex relationships. A "heteroromantic" bisexual will always be using gay men or lesbians (depending on their sex) for sex while only engaging in opposite sex relationships. Our intimacies will always be fair-weather and fleeting and queer theory ideologies hope to keep it that way.

You can see this trend with the bodies pushed on gay men and lesbian women. Either transgender bodies, which are the opposite sex so we engage in heterosexuality, or asexual bodies, so we can be in a same-sex relationship but without the sex. IMO, it's also why open relationships are pushed so hard on gay men- they destabilize our relationships and promote the idea that we shouldn't work on being better for our partners, that we should keep a relationship going even if we don't want to be with that person (because breaking up is 'problematic'), and that you can't expect sexual exclusivity from someone you're committed to.

[–]rockhard288 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hate how when you call it out, then they call you "closed minded". And this is an issue most bisexuals don't really think about or even discuss. Honestly if you go into a hetero LTR/marriage relationship or only partake in hetero dating then you really can't stand upon a soapbox and preach about bi or homosexual issues. It's not within their right nor do they experience the hardship or discrimination lesbians and gay men go through.

[–]LushCanopy 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is definitely an agenda being pushed that overcomplicates bi/homosexuality. Separating gender and sex also contributes to that. We have seen how people are trying to change the meaning of simple words/concepts like "lesbian". I'm not sure what the end goal is, but all of this feels homophobic to me.

[–]markiemarcus 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because for all the talk of "love is love", the concept of same-sex romantic attraction between Kinsey 6s is a brick through the window of GI theory and ideologues would rather it didn't exist.

That's my take anyway.

[–]Shadow_the_Hedgehog 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree with the other commenters but also want to add that I think it's this bizarre childishness from young adults where all sex is icky but they still want their oppressed minority card punched. They can "be gay, do crimes" without actually being homosexual, so long as they are still "romantically attracted" a gender they found on tumblr. All they have to do is combine enough buzzwords on the internet and poof they are now gayylmao and can jerk off with the rest of their fellow queers in the discord server whenever someone starts the "we're soooo gay teehee" posts. In reality, they're a run of the mill young adult who's "partner" is online or little more than a roommate.

I also think it's virtue signaling culture taken to its extreme. I didn't start seeing this separation pushed so hard until the Q and A were welded onto the LGB(T) and I think it's because in their circles, forgetting a letter is an unforgivable sin. It's so ingrained to constantly include the devils advocate ("nOt EvErY oNe ExPeRiAnCes SeXuAl AtTraCtiON!!!1""WhAt aBoUt NoNbInArieS???????????????!!) that its easier to redefine and separate the types of attraction so that all 7.8 billion humans on the planet can be Queer™️ too.

[–]HelloMomo 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I didn't start seeing this separation pushed so hard until the Q and A were welded onto the LGB(T)

I'm like 95% sure the split attraction model started on an asexual forum, and then spread.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm convinced all the microsexualities began with asexuals. They were my first exposure to them in the early 2000s anyway when I thought I was asexual. I remember looking up AVEN and found all these kids analyzing their sexualities (or lack thereof) to death. At the time, I thought asexuality should only be for people who were sex-averse, romance-averse, relationship-averse, so I was turned off by the needless complications and still am.

[–]HelloMomo 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Same! During my asexual days, I thought all these other people were weak-ass fakers — not like me, who was actually full-on 100% aro ace.

Ha! Turns out, even I wasn't actually that XD

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Non sense. Just non sense. I second what all the answers here have already said.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I think romance and sexual attraction ARE separate.

Hear me out on this one. No, I don't think it's possible to have a conflicting "romantic orientation" and "sexual orientation", ie being a "homoromantic heterosexual." But I do think sexual attraction and romance do NOT go hand in hand and can absolutely be separate.

I am sexually attracted to males, but I have never been "in love" with one, nor loved back. I just don't have that connection and I don't feel like most males are even interested in "love." I don't see the point in lying about homosexuality being this thing about "love is love" and eternal relationships when that's actually far from reality. Most men just want sex.

A sad reality no one wants to admit, maybe, but it's no more of a lie than "biological sex is real." I wish I had "love" but chances are I never will, because "romantic love" is more or less a fairytale concept and something that most of us won't experience. Media teaches us that we're all destined to "find our one true love" but that's unrealistic and a lie. I think most people don't, regardless of orientation.

[–]markiemarcus 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It may not be that way for you (and I'm sure that the same is true for many), but the romantic component is huge for me. This actually came up in a discussion recently and I was shocked to discover that it isn't this way for everybody; I had always assumed that it was. I just...I can't imagine one without the other. It's so alien to me. The "one true love" stuff is nonsense though.

Presumably you have strong connections with other people in your life? Be that close friendships or family.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh, don't get me wrong, it's huge for me HYPOTHETICALLY too. I believe it's detrimental and destructive to have sex without loving each other. (If that makes me "sound like a conservative Christian", I don't care.) But at the same time, I have to accept I will never love another man, nor will I be loved by one.

I don't really, I've always found it hard to make friends, and family have never been around.

[–]markiemarcus 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh no judgement there at all; I don't think casual hookups are healthy either. Certainly not with total strangers. To each their own I suppose!

I wouldn't count yourself out. This stuff does need built and nurtured IMO though. My early to mid 20s were a total write off for various reasons, but it did come around again. Took some work though, not even the romantic connections, the friendship connections.

I'd start with hobbies, embrace the things that you really love, and see where that takes you. Maybe even some voluntary work; that actually really helped me be more open and connect with people again. I had a huge shock in the my late teens/early 20s and, following a 12-18 month bout of mania and grief (less charitably, a full-blown episode), I just completely shut down. It wasn't even depression; I felt absolutely nothing. Going through the motions with regards to everything.

Mid 30s now and the situation is rather different; it's been a gradual process.

[–]rockhard288 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think most people are waking up to the monogamy aspect. That's why many are participating in open relationships, polyamory, swinging. And why some people are refusing to get married or even in a relationship.

Despite that I think the analysis is kinda shallow. While sex is the big part in partnering, humans do have an emotional component to it too. And it has been observed in adjacent species.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that sex and (romantic) love are interconnected. Men tend to love the people they sexualise, and women tend to sexualise the people they love. And we don't always fall in love with the people with have sex with. However, I would highly doubt that there would be anyone who only has sex with one sex and falls in love with another. Sexual attraction spurs romantic attraction and vice-versa, they're two sides of the same coin. Queer thoery can argue till it's blue in the face that there's a split, however I've never seen anyone who bona fide emobodied that split irl. A lot of the people I see online talking about this stuff are generally inexperienced / young.

[–]HelloMomo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see a parallels between separating sex (the male/female kind) and gender, and separating sex (the fucking kind) and romance. Because like... yes, they're not exactly the same thing, but they are sufficiently interconnected that trying to define gender or romance completely without sex leaves you with a confusing and vague definition that's effectively meaningless.