YoursMistress
Posts: 894
Joined: 12/17/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Your idea is flawed because by your premise then experience is the only indicator of sexual preference and that just isn't true. I do not agree that bi-curious should be an option either. Otherwise you should also have slave-curious, dominant-curious, switch-curious... the list would just go on and on. the.dark. Sigh. I continue to be exasperated by the notion that there are a fixed and finite number of subsets of sexuality that are important to maintain and that everyone must be identified and categorized into one. Even if I am heterosexual, it doesn't mean that I will be attracted to anyone else who also identifies themselves as hetero. If it is so darned important to categorize people, wouldn't it be easier to do so given more categories? The hardest thing for me is to get why it is important for someone who isn't gay, bi or God forbid, bi-curious to determine that anyone else in the world oughtn't to claim to be in one or another category. For all you know, the person who claims to be hetero dreams of nothing but dicks all night, and the one who claims to be gay is doing so strictly to seem trendy. I won't disagree that having broad categories (straight, gay, bi, dominant, submissive, switch) makes it easy to organize a website so that people can more quickly narrow their searches and raise their chances of finding compatible people or pertinent information with higher probability. However, when it comes to how individuals identify themselves, whether they want to call themselves bi-curious, 50% gay, demi-gay, in a gray area, gayish, bi-ish, or whatever, who's bloody business is it really? yours
< Message edited by YoursMistress -- 5/7/2009 6:21:35 AM >
_____________________________
May your service of love a beautiful thing; want nothing else, fear nothing else and let love be free to become what love truly is. -- Hadewijch of Antwerp As a rule, I don't like to make general statements.
|