A Fourth Sexual Orientation?

You like femboys. They're adorable creatures. The asshole and the mouth are the best fuckholes anyway.

The problem with the concept of sexuality is that is has no permanent, fixed meaning. Relationships can be built on the basis of love as well as physical attraction and sexual union, and for some reason the 'ideal' relationship is supposed to be one that combines the physical with the emotional and is 'sanctified' in marriage. Since there are plenty of people who do not fit into the stereotypes that then attempt to construct the meaning of relationships, attempting to fit everyone into categories such as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, metro-sexual, asexual, contra-sexual and so on, misses the wider meaning in relationships where people come together on the basis of something other than sexual behaviour. Indeed, one of the aims behind the creation of civil partnerships was to give any two people the right to leave their estate on their death to the other which before was not guaranteed in the absence of a will. Two women living together who may just have been friends since the deaths of their husbands (for example) can form a civil partnership to guarantee that a inherits what belongs to b; sexual behaviour has no automatic connection to civil partnerships.

As there are plenty of people who are not interested in, or just not good at relationships and who enjoy having sexual relations with people they would never live with, of whichever gender character you can describe, why does sexuality even matter? The mania for creating pigeon-holes, categories, classifications of this and that bears in its own form the core of the problem. What proportion of people actually feat neatly into the categories drawn up? Its as meaningless as race, but worse, it is then used to make a judgement in which value is added, or subtracted: being heterosexual and married with children rates 10 stars while being single, uninterested in procreation and sex is equivalent to being a nobody and rates 0, and so on. There was a time when being homosexual rated 0 stars; monks and nuns rated more stars for their selfless devotion to God, and so on and so on. Now it seems, homos rate at least 6 or 7 stars, in western Europe and North America anyway. What a load of rubbish.

You're right, Stavros. Definition of sexual orientaion is just meaningless semantics.

When Buttslinger was a little boy in Elementary School, early 1960s, every kid was white, every teacher was female, everyone had two parents and Dad worked, Mom was a housewife.

Those days have changed forever.

It's called androphilia. Ya'll are androphiles. I'm probably the biggest one out of the bunch of ya's.

Uh, androphilia? What the crap? Beg my pardon for being clueless here, but shouldn't androgyny only describe the androgynous? Why coin a new term which applies to guys attracted to naked men? Are "gay" or "bisexual" just too offensive or something?

It's kinda clown-shoes ridiculous to call androgyny a new sexual orientation anyway when all it boils down to is a mind-set, a body-type, and some makeup. Most of the time, it's just bisexuality with a visual calling-card. Remove anything but the makeup and society would label the dude a cross dresser. So, should an attraction to cross dressers deserve a fifth newly concocted sexual orientation? I don't think so, but somebody has probably coined a term for that just to make it seem less gay too.

Maybe I'm just oversimplifying, but I've always considered that men who are attracted to other men (not just dick, but the physique) to be bisexual or gay and this still clearly falls into that category, doesn't it?

I didn't coin a new term. Google is your friend.

I think when it comes to beauty, fashion, art,.....you're always the moth dancing around the feminine flame.

I thought the fourth sexual orientation was sailor.

Har!