Anonymous wrote:So is "Hasbian" if you were a lesbian but are still attracted to women but won't act on it due to hetero monogamous marriage?

Willbian if you hate your gross DH and are headed for divorce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How on earth could you ever describe someone of your same sex “attractive” if you don’t experience even minimal attraction to them? All this binning and labeling is weird, this sounds like completely normal heterosexual behavior.

Binning? What the heck? I never heard that word before.

Brits bin and sort.

So this British woman has a problem with people finding labels they identify with instead of everyone being straight? And was this British term used to let us know she's not an American or did she not know that people here don't use those words? I get the sorting part but I still don't know what "binning"means. Wouldn't you sort something before you put it in a bin?

You are unhinged. That’s the only label people need to describe you. (And Americans absolutely use “bin” as a verb.)

[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you have "a type" and you experience same sex attraction so it's likely you're some type of bisexual. Someone up thread mentioned heteromantic bisexual but I'm not so such because it sounds like you're physically attracted to certain women. To me it just sounds like you're bi. A bi person doesn't have to be 50/50 (equally attracted to men and women). A bi person can be 70/30 or even 99/1. Straight people are 100/0. They are never attracted to someone of the same sex. People that claim otherwise are trying to redefine straight. The vast majority of the population never (even once) experience same sex attraction.

See I think the vast majority of the population experience some minimal same sex attraction but not enough that it makes them seriously question their sexuality outside of the default assumption of straight. I think if kids grew up assuming the default sexuality was bi/pan, the number of strict heterosexuals would be pretty small. But if people fit well enough into the default heterosexual assumption (like 1-15% same sex attracted only) they usually just carry on with calling themselves straight because they’re almost certainly going to end up in a heterosexual relationship. Whereas if we assumed people were bi/pan until they came out as straight, we’d only get the 0% same sex attracted people as “straight” and all the not super same sex attracted but a little bit as bi/pan.

We hear so much about how All The Kids are identifying as not-straight these days so maybe my theory will get tested in a the coming decades.

You could be right about this and most people are bisexual but I'm still skeptical because all the kids aren't identifying as queer. Something like 80% still identify as straight. Now it could be that they're closeted bisexuals too because they know their family won't be accepting?

Would more people have same sex partners if they weren't worried about homophobia in society? I'm sure. It's still kind of difficult for me to believe that it's a majority of people that are queer and repressing this desire though.

I don’t think we’d have that many more same sex pairings of most people identified as bi because most of those “bi” people (currently categorized as “straight”) are only rarely attracted to their own gender. So the likelihood of two 5% attracted to women women meeting and falling in love isn’t large; most of them will still end up marrying men who are 85-100% attracted to women. The only difference if the couple says they’re a bi man married to a bi woman or a straight man married to a straight woman. As far as I’m concerned, the distinction is pretty academic. People who feel strongly that calling themselves “straight” feels wrong generally identify as part of queer community and are hopefully welcomed and happy there. People who feel fine calling themselves “straight” while also feeling some aspect or another of same sex attraction fit into mainstream society and date and marry opposite sex people and are generally pretty happy.

So is "Hasbian" if you were a lesbian but are still attracted to women but won't act on it due to hetero monogamous marriage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How on earth could you ever describe someone of your same sex “attractive” if you don’t experience even minimal attraction to them? All this binning and labeling is weird, this sounds like completely normal heterosexual behavior.

Binning? What the heck? I never heard that word before.

Brits bin and sort.

So this British woman has a problem with people finding labels they identify with instead of everyone being straight? And was this British term used to let us know she's not an American or did she not know that people here don't use those words? I get the sorting part but I still don't know what "binning"means. Wouldn't you sort something before you put it in a bin?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How on earth could you ever describe someone of your same sex “attractive” if you don’t experience even minimal attraction to them? All this binning and labeling is weird, this sounds like completely normal heterosexual behavior.

Binning? What the heck? I never heard that word before.

Brits bin and sort.

Anonymous wrote:How on earth could you ever describe someone of your same sex “attractive” if you don’t experience even minimal attraction to them? All this binning and labeling is weird, this sounds like completely normal heterosexual behavior.

Binning? What the heck? I never heard that word before.

How on earth could you ever describe someone of your same sex “attractive” if you don’t experience even minimal attraction to them? All this binning and labeling is weird, this sounds like completely normal heterosexual behavior.