First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply How Would you feel if your SoulMates Gender was wrong?
22124 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/23/16

Getting off point it's not as clear cut all the time. Although I will agree that the nature of the question does look a lot like a progressive shit test.


With questions like these I tend to suspect the op is asking for more reasons than just hypothetical.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/23/16 , edited 10/23/16

ClothStatue wrote:
With questions like these I tend to suspect the op is asking for more reasons than just hypothetical.


I'm not one to speculate the motive of the original poster, likely it's unintentional. Whether it was intentional or not does not change what it appears to be though. I presume innocent curiosity first though.

22124 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/23/16 , edited 10/23/16

So, if you think you're a heterosexual who's being progressive by saying you'd be okay with such things, no you aren't. No, see you're actually just a complete moron who just accidentally discovered they are bi.


According to most research on sexuality, the vast majority of people have bisexual leanings. There was a small sample study (needs to be done a larger scale next) to test out homosexual tendencies between genders and sexuality, they used pupil dilations, which were discovered to be an uncontrollable give away of sexual arousal (cause beforehand you'd have to look in people's pants and that can cause a whole slew of problems). The results were that while a lot of (not all) straight men were completely straight, and gay men completely gay; with women of any sexuality all of them without fail presented at least some degree of homosexual tendencies. They also should do a test for heterosexual tendencies as well. But we already knew that people can vary in their tastes.

However when we think about sexuality things aren't really that binary, and besides, if a person doesn't want to date a certain gender, does not want to be considered dateable by a certain gender, and does not feel much anything for a certain gender, then why not call yourself straight or homo? I mean personally I have never felt turned on by any man's body, but if I somehow fell for a man I don't see why I'd instantly start thirsting over guys like I'm Gou in Free
22124 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/23/16 , edited 10/23/16

I'm not one to speculate the motive of the original poster, likely it's unintentional. Whether it was intentional or not does not change what it appears to be though. I presume innocent curiosity first though.


I don't want to come off as rude but you actually had just done so. I think it's unlikely as well and I have neither the interest nor patience to get clarification myself. but sometimes these posts are particularly specific, the most specific it gets the more likely I feel (it's just a feeling, admittedly) the possibility they want advice.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/23/16 , edited 10/23/16

ClothStatue wrote:

According to most research on sexuality, the vast majority of people have bisexual leanings. There was a small sample study (needs to be done a larger scale next) to test out homosexual tendencies between genders and sexuality, they used pupil dilations, which were discovered to be an uncontrollable give away of sexual arousal (cause beforehand you'd have to look in people's pants and that can cause a whole slew of problems). The results were that while a lot of (not all) straight men were completely straight, and gay men completely gay; with women of any sexuality all of them without fail presented at least some degree homosexual tendencies towards women. They also should do a test for heterosexual tendencies as well. But we already knew that people can vary in their tastes.

However when we think about sexuality things aren't really that binary, and besides, if a person doesn't want to date a certain gender, does not want to be considered dateable by a certain gender, and does not feel much anything for a certain gender, then why not call yourself straight or homo? I mean personally I have never felt turned on by any man's body, but if I somehow fell for a man I don't see why I'd instantly start thirsting over guys like I'm Gou in Free


Women historically had more (many women-to-one man) sorts of relationships (Ex. Harems). There was more pressure on females versus males, to be sexually attracted to the same sex. There is also the fact that females are much more physically attractive than males on a neutral standard (although that gap is now narrowing over generations).

Nonetheless, if one were to define bisexuality on physical attraction alone...I wouldn't be surprised if there were more bisexual women than heterosexual. If Pornhub statistics are anything to go by. Course we don't do that.


ClothStatue wrote:

I don't want to come off as rude but you actually had just done so. I think it's unlikely as well and I have neither the interest nor patience to get clarification myself. but sometimes these posts are particularly specific, the most specific it gets the more likely I feel (it's just a feeling, admittedly) the possibility they want advice.


Ah touche, caught.

Flecto 
154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/23/16
I really don't think soulmates are even a thing but I would likely just be good friends with said person.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/23/16 , edited 10/23/16


I see your point. And, I also understand how unique your personality is.

BUT, your perspective has a number of flaws. That's actually quite unique in itself, considering how on point your comments usually are.

Not to argue, but rather to spread understanding:

You are bisexual. Sexual preference has everything to do with lust, and little to do with love. So, you physically are attracted to both. Bisexual.

And, if sexual preference wasn't based on lust, the term sexual preference would be completely inaccurate.

Expanding this even farther, there are certain men I've gotten along with and enjoyed being around far more than any woman. Does that make me bisexual? No, because I was in no way attracted to these men, and therefore could not have sex with them, so any relationship we had would always be platonic.

And, people can say sex is not important. To some it is not important, and to others it is extremely important. However, the importance of sex overall cannot be dismissed. If you have a non-sexual relationship with a person, it's more of a close friendship than romantic love.

Overall, sexual attraction is very important to compatibility. Slightly more important for women than men, on average (from my observations)... but universally important overall. If I had a nickle every time a guy was put in the friend-zone because a woman just "didn't see him in that way," I'd pay off our nation's debt. Love and lust are separate things. No matter who tells you otherwise, they are complimentary, not codependent. Lust will often embellish a connection felt in love, and love will often embellish the connect felt in lust, but they are both separate, and necessary things. Though often confused one for another, one cannot simply appear because of the presence of the other.

Back to what you said, you are bisexual. Your preference in partners is not the same as your sexual preference. It's based on behavior. Though that is generally tied to commonly found behaviors in certain genders, it has nothing to do with your sexual attraction. You could legitimately find a suitable partner from either sex, if their behavior was appropriate. Your choice in partners is the same as saying, "I will not date a cop, because most cops are assholes." (Not that I believe this, but I've heard it. It's actually a common thing.)

That's much different than someone else being completely turned off by certain sexual features, and therefore being incompatible with those who possess them.
9769 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 10/23/16
Break up. As much as I'd supposedly like the rhetorical "soul mate," not being sexually attracted to their genitals is one hell of a romantic barrier. Besides, the OP gives me the impression that the person hasn't been all that invested into a long-term relationship. Dating someone for over a year and only recently divulging her sex, and only upon being confronted? What the hell? And the explanation is; "because I'm really a girl." Okay, so the person knew I wanted to be with a man, and then intentionally led me on for a whole f*cking year. What an asshole.
22124 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/23/16

Women historically had more (many women-to-one man) sorts of relationships (Ex. Harems). There was more pressure on females versus males, to be sexually attracted to the same sex. There is also the fact that females are much more physically attractive than males on a neutral standard (although that gap is now narrowing over generations).

Nonetheless, if one were to define bisexuality on physical attraction alone...I wouldn't be surprised if there were more bisexual women than heterosexual. If Pornhub statistics are anything to go by. Course we don't do that.


Interesting theory, on the point that females are more attractive than males on a neutral standard, but sexual attraction to certain physical traits is highly variable to certain factors. Beauty standards today are the polar opposite of what they were in other eras. When I was growing up in West Africa, thin and lithe women were considered ugly and undesirable, while large, if not obese women were considered highly sexually attractive, this is mirrored in ancient greece and renaissance Italy and, honestly most older civilizations where they were the same, as they were known for having high fertility, and men also had their own standards a lot of the time, many varying opinions on the size of their genitalia, as well as their physical might (or lack of).

Perhaps women are considered more attractive on a neutral basis because women are more likely to care about their image, and men who do are usually berated or teased for it. I've met many men who I thought would look handsome if they showered and shaved, got a haircut, and used a face wash. I'd be interested to see the studies for that.
22124 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/23/16 , edited 10/23/16

Break up. As much as I'd supposedly like the rhetorical "soul mate," not being sexually attracted to their genitals is one hell of a romantic barrier. Besides, the OP gives me the impression that the person hasn't been all that invested into a long-term relationship. Dating someone for over a year and only recently divulging her sex, and only upon being confronted? What the hell? And the explanation is; "because I'm really a girl." Okay, so the person knew I wanted to be with a man, and then intentionally led me on for a whole f*cking year. What an asshole.


I think the op means your partner would be a transgender man. The rest of his body would probably be indiscernible from a cisgender man anyway even if you saw him naked outside of his genitalia, sex he'd probably just like to use a strap-on so you might be over thinking it a little. Still, if you want the real thing and or your husband's biological children then I guess I can see where you're coming from.

-I've had the privilege of being friends with a lot of trans men, they look like any other dude.
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 10/23/16
I'm ok with it even if I was straight it just would mean no sex romantically straight me would be down for it
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 10/23/16

aeb0717 wrote:

Break up. As much as I'd supposedly like the rhetorical "soul mate," not being sexually attracted to their genitals is one hell of a romantic barrier. Besides, the OP gives me the impression that the person hasn't been all that invested into a long-term relationship. Dating someone for over a year and only recently divulging her sex, and only upon being confronted? What the hell? And the explanation is; "because I'm really a girl." Okay, so the person knew I wanted to be with a man, and then intentionally led me on for a whole f*cking year. What an asshole.


Sex isn't that important in a long term relationship to some people.

I'll happily go my life without sex and be with a partner.

Sex is an addition not a necessity
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 10/23/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:



I see your point. And, I also understand how unique your personality is.

BUT, your perspective has a number of flaws. That's actually quite unique in itself, considering how on point your comments usually are.

Not to argue, but rather to spread understanding:

You are bisexual. Sexual preference has everything to do with lust, and little to do with love. So, you physically are attracted to both. Bisexual.

And, if sexual preference wasn't based on lust, the term sexual preference would be completely inaccurate.

Expanding this even farther, there are certain men I've gotten along with and enjoyed being around far more than any woman. Does that make me bisexual? No, because I was in no way attracted to these men, and therefore could not have sex with them, so any relationship we had would always be platonic.

And, people can say sex is not important. To some it is not important, and to others it is extremely important. However, the importance of sex overall cannot be dismissed. If you have a non-sexual relationship with a person, it's more of a close friendship than romantic love.

Overall, sexual attraction is very important to compatibility. Slightly more important for men than women, on average... but universally important overall. If I had a nickle every time a guy was put in the friend-zone because a woman just "didn't see him in that way," I'd pay off our nation's debt. Love and lust are separate things. No matter who tells you otherwise, they are complimentary, not codependent. Lust will often embellish a connection felt in love, and love will often embellish the connect felt in lust, but they are both separate, and necessary things. Though often confused one for another, one cannot simply appear because of the presence of the other.

Back to what you said, you are bisexual. Your preference in partners is not the same as your sexual preference. It's based on behavior. Though that is generally tied to commonly found behaviors in certain genders, it has nothing to do with your sexual attraction. You could legitimately find a suitable partner from either sex, if their behavior was appropriate. Your choice in partners is the same as saying, "I will not date a cop, because most cops are assholes." (Not that I believe this, but I've heard it. It's actually a common thing.)

That's much different than someone else being completely turned off by certain sexual features, and therefore being incompatible with those who possess them.



"
And, people can say sex is not important. To some it is not important, and to others it is extremely important. However, the importance of sex overall cannot be dismissed. If you have a non-sexual relationship with a person, it's more of a close friendship than romantic love.
"

Highly subjective I would say it's still romantic love
Also I used to be straight the idea of doing it with a dude revolted me I never cared for societies opinions on it or how I would be seen if I was bi as I'm Autistic however I was straight.

I am bisexual now I find the idea of being with a guy sexually more and more appealing day by day.

Sexuality can be fluid last time I checked however I'm going to go with my personal basis as I didn't come out of the closet as bi or dislike it due to social pressure I just never was attracted to men in the past and I am now.

According to you I'm an enigma or a liar so...

22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/23/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:
I see your point. And, I also understand how unique your personality is.

BUT, your perspective has a number of flaws. That's actually quite unique in itself, considering how on point your comments usually are.

Not to argue, but rather to spread understanding:

You are bisexual. Sexual preference has everything to do with lust, and little to do with love. So, you physically are attracted to both. Bisexual.

And, if sexual preference wasn't based on lust, the term sexual preference would be completely inaccurate.

Expanding this even farther, there are certain men I've gotten along with and enjoyed being around far more than any woman. Does that make me bisexual? No, because I was in no way attracted to these men, and therefore could not have sex with them, so any relationship we had would always be platonic.

And, people can say sex is not important. To some it is not important, and to others it is extremely important. However, the importance of sex overall cannot be dismissed. If you have a non-sexual relationship with a person, it's more of a close friendship than romantic love.

Overall, sexual attraction is very important to compatibility. Slightly more important for men than women, on average... but universally important overall. If I had a nickle every time a guy was put in the friend-zone because a woman just "didn't see him in that way," I'd pay off our nation's debt. Love and lust are separate things. No matter who tells you otherwise, they are complimentary, not codependent. Lust will often embellish a connection felt in love, and love will often embellish the connect felt in lust, but they are both separate, and necessary things. Though often confused one for another, one cannot simply appear because of the presence of the other.

Back to what you said, you are bisexual. Your preference in partners is not the same as your sexual preference. It's based on behavior. Though that is generally tied to commonly found behaviors in certain genders, it has nothing to do with your sexual attraction. You could legitimately find a suitable partner from either sex, if their behavior was appropriate. Your choice in partners is the same as saying, "I will not date a cop, because most cops are assholes." (Not that I believe this, but I've heard it. It's actually a common thing.)

That's much different than someone else being completely turned off by certain sexual features, and therefore being incompatible with those who possess them.


That's certainly one way to see it. Although, I wouldn't say I'm not attracted to same sex because they're assholes or something like that (psychology)--but rather I see neurology to be just as important to one's biological sex.

And frankly, one would have to have such an amount of neurological disorder for me to be attracted to the same sex that the chances are next to negligible.



Unique, odd, I'm very aware of being lol.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/23/16 , edited 10/23/16

Ryulightorb wrote:



"
And, people can say sex is not important. To some it is not important, and to others it is extremely important. However, the importance of sex overall cannot be dismissed. If you have a non-sexual relationship with a person, it's more of a close friendship than romantic love.
"

Highly subjective I would say it's still romantic love
Also I used to be straight the idea of doing it with a dude revolted me I never cared for societies opinions on it or how I would be seen if I was bi as I'm Autistic however I was straight.

I am bisexual now I find the idea of being with a guy sexually more and more appealing day by day.

Sexuality can be fluid last time I checked however I'm going to go with my personal basis as I didn't come out of the closet as bi or dislike it due to social pressure I just never was attracted to men in the past and I am now.

According to you I'm an enigma or a liar so...



Nope, you are neither.

What you are is a man who had bisexual leanings and the social indoctrination that a dude with a dude was revolting. I, however, seriously contemplated relations with a man in my early 20s. Let's just say I tested some theories. Men do not do it for me.

Your situation is more like my wife with food. I just had to almost hold her down (hyperbole) to get her to try gouda. After she tried it, she was okay with it. Was her idea that it was disgusting due to her dislike of gouda? No. It comes from being conditioned that trying unusual things usually leads to something disgusting. Conditioning. So, you were conditioned to feel revolted, and you did. You broke from that. Congratulations.

As far as being okay with no sex. I literally stated some didn't find it important, others did. Those who don't are the vast minority among men, and somewhat a minority among women. Though, studies show that women are more likely to accept a relationship with unsatisfying sex, those who are not satisfied are far more likely to cheat.

My point is, I acknowledged these people exist, but almost as a rule, most people require a sexual relationship with our partners, at least in monogamous relationships, because humans have sexual urges.

Basically, no. Don't shove your stupid progressive BS down my throat. It is one thing to understand that you are different. It is entirely something else to pretend that everyone else is the same as you, but choose to be otherwise. What you are doing is the very same thing Hetero bigots did to homosexuals for years. And quite frankly, this level of hypocrisy pissed me off.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.