So does that make me straight curious as well?

Hey folks this is Danny (aka sanguinedream) from Danny’s Corner and I’ve been invited to become a contributor here and I just could not refuse.

Since Cacophonies seems to be up for a wide range of topics I’m gonna go left field for a bit and talk about sexuality for my introduction.

I’m sure you are more than likely familiar with the term “bi-curious” right? If not it refers to one is generally identifies as heterosexual or homosexual but has curiosities about romantic or sexual activities with people of the same (if you’re heterosexual) or opposite (if you’re homosexual) gender. So to be curious about romance or sex of the orientation opposite of what you identify with there is the implication that you have never done such things before. So what if you have no sexual or romantic experience?

I’ve called myself heterosexual for the vast majority of my life. Checking women out. Paying attention to women in porn (but not lesbian porn but that is another story for another day). Fantasizing about women. Par for the course for a heterosexual man (or homosexual woman) right? However about five years ago I opened up to thoughts about homosexuality. Checking men out. Paying attention to men in porn. Fantasizing about men. Par for the course for a homosexual men (or heterosexual woman) right?

Thing is I have no experience in either one.

So based on the fact that I have no experience in heterosexual or homosexual romance/sex does that mean that I’m in some weird limbo in which I’m straight curious and gay curious at the same time? Or can I just call it simply curious since without any experience I’m still at the starting point of discovering my sexuality? Just wondering.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in LGBTQ, Relationships, Sexuality and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to So does that make me straight curious as well?

  1. ethifem says:

    I think bi-curious is the most accurate term from what you said. I don’t necessarily think that you have have experience in order to have a preference for men or women.

    From the way that you describe considering yourself to be heterosexual most of your life, and only fairly recently have becoming interested in the idea of men sexually/romantically, it sounds like you’re bi-curious.

    …On the other hand, for so many people (I’ve read a lot about this on transgender blogs, in particular), sexuality is a really fluid thing and can change over time.

  2. N says:

    From http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html:

    Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.

    I personally am convinced that sexuality is one area of human identity that least fits into neat categorization when examined closely. I suspect that without societal expectations that human sexuality would find little to no hard divisions.

    Wouldn’t a world where any adult can make a respectful advance toward any adult and have it met at worse with a simple “No thank you.”?

    As much as the world around you wants you fit inside a box, I say “don’t”!

  3. Pingback: New contributors « ethecofem

Comments are closed.