ZA Furries

Right, so... as I mentioned in this thread, I'd like to request that a similar change be made to the "sexual pre-fur-ence" field.

Firstly, please don't call it that. We get it, we're furries, but that is one of the most cringe-worthy puns I've ever laid eyes on.

The current options have a degree of redundancy. I suggest making it not specific to the gender of the member (i.e. a male lesbian is not possible - I'm looking at you, Yote) but rather to the gender(s) they are attracted to. For example:
> Androphile
> Gynephile
> Bisexual, mostly androphile
> Bisexual, mostly gynephile
> Bisexual
> Pansexual
> Demisexual
> Asexual

That way it's obvious who someone may be attracted to (as opposed to, for example, "straight" which would depend on their gender), and implicitly indicates whether they are straight/gay/whatever. This scheme is a lot more inclusive and leaves no room for inconsistency.

That's going to confuse 100% of people. I had never even heard of an "Androphile" or a "Gynephile" up until this point.

I thought that gay was a blanket term for having same sex attraction?

Then why have an option for "lesbian"?

Remove that then, but your solution is not vaguely intuitive.

Or simply use "Homosexual" and "Heterosexual".

EDIT: Ninja'ed.

I politely disagree with this request.

One must place it under scrutiny. Would it be practical? Are people familiar with the terms? Though sexuality does indeed occur along a gradient (as defined by the Kinsey scale, for example), most people are content with the terms homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual, and these are commonly understood. Additionally, those who genuinely fit within the uncommon categories are, from a statistical viewpoint, insignificant - that is to say, many of those categories would be left vacant or have a highly impractical occurrence. Also, many would be unfamiliar with some of those terms.

Personally, I find it wholly redundant to have such a vast variety when three or four categories would suffice. I see no need to complicate it. 'Heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual' and perhaps 'other' may be sufficient.

StargazingSerpent wrote:Additionally, those who genuinely fit within the uncommon categories are, from a statistical viewpoint, insignificant - that is to say, many of those categories would be left vacant or have a highly impractical occurrence.

Then why the hell did we just get transgenders added to the gender list?

Leeward wrote:Then why the hell did we just get transgenders added to the gender list?

1) That is a false equivalence, from a logical viewpoint. Gender is a social construct and is determined by a person's perception of him- or herself; sexuality, as we know it, may have some variance and fluidity, but for the most part is fixed.

Sexuality can occur across a gradient. For example, the Kinsey scale. No such spectrum, which is defined by a series of values arranged between two absolutes, exists for gender. For example, 'trigender', 'spirit gender', 'agender' and 'genderfluid' cannot be organized within a spectrum. Because they are not bound within a range between two absolutes, therefore, as sexuality is (heterosexual - bisexual - homosexual), an infinite number of genders can be conceived.

Apples and oranges.
Many specific terms must be created for gender because they can only be defined individually.
Not as many specific terms must be created for sexuality because umbrella terms encompass large portions of the sexuality gradient (e.g 'heterosexual')

Today I was told to go to tumbler for proof.

Then why the hell did we just get transgenders added to the gender list?

Trans I can understand, herm, not so much.

I have to disagree too. apart from not knowing what half of that means... I don't know what half of that means. Yes, I'd like asexual to be on there - or on option to say "who knows" but that list... confused the bejeezes out of me.

I think the inclusion of simplified sexuality titles - like demisexual, pansexual and asexual should be included, I don't agree with changing the current ones...

Why is it even needed?

This isn't a dating website, and it should have no bearing on how we interact with the other people on here.

Sev wrote:Why is it even needed?

This isn't a dating website, and it should have no bearing on how we interact with the other people on here.

It's not about dating or finding someone with a similar preference to you Sev. It's about an identity. We are all about our identities here... and having an accurate sexual preference tag is something that's bugged me forever. Because while I'm sure no one gives a fuck that I am asexual - I give a fuck. it's a part of me.

I guess so.

And there are a few couples on here.

Hell, I might have not been able to spend almost two years with an absolutely fantastic Lion had it not been for the fact that this information is disclosed.

You guys are making it really hard for me not to ragequit right now...

Fine, what if you replace "androphile" with "males" and "gynephile" with "females"? Is that simple enough for any unfortunate philistines that may get confused by the proper terms for attraction to penises and vaginas respectively?

Why not just Homosexual and Heterosexual?

Unless you want to see: "I like both, but I'm more inclined to go with males" as a person's status.

Because those terms are relative to the person's gender.
That's, like, the whole friggin' point of the suggestion.

Since both the gender and the orientation are specified, I don't see why it's an issue.

Yote's status is pretty amusing, but if you don't want it, can't the orientations just be made conditional?

I remember the good old days... when you were straight and petrified of "funny men"... ah... the way we teased you... and then you turned out to be a "funny man"... ah... the good old days

Leeward look, I don't want to be mean but it's not "philistines". It's normal people. Please, go out there, onto the street and ask one of them what an androphile is. Go on, do it. And when you come back pissed off because not a single person bar maybe a few unique intellectuals who know things said the answer was "One who is attracted to masculinity or to men".

Why not just leave them as generics. We didn't go for massively confusing on the gender side. Yes, I agree, we need it expanded, but why complicate it... why not make the list the following:

Straight
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual - Mostly straight
Bisexual
Biseual - Mostly gay
Asexual
Demisexual
Pansexual
Undecided
Does it Matter?

Leeward, the greatest issue is the redundancy and the overcomplication of an aspect to which no objection was previously raised (as far as I am aware - I might be incorrect). This is not Tumblr. I feel this site is beginning to cascade down into what will ultimately become a dictatorial stronghold of politically-correct and liberal culture with all these precedents being established.

EDIT:

In simplified English:

The biggest worry is the needlessness and overcomplication of something that no-one complained about before (as far as I know). This is not Tumblr. I feel this site is beginning to turn into what will be a dictatorship of politically-correct and liberal culture with all that is going on.

RavenSong wrote:I remember the good old days... when you were straight and petrified of "funny men"... ah... the way we teased you... and then you turned out to be a "funny man"... ah... the good old days

That feel like a lifetime ago.

Life has changed so much since then.

StargazingSerpent wrote:Leeward, the greatest issue is the redundancy and the overcomplication of an aspect to which no objection was previously raised (as far as I am aware - I might be incorrect). This is not Tumblr. I feel this site is beginning to cascade down into what will ultimately become a dictatorial stronghold of politically-correct and liberal culture with all these precedents being established.

I do wish you'd speak English...

Leeward ahs brought it up not because it was an objection, but rather - and rightly so - because if we're overhauling the gender profiles, why not do the same to the sexual preferences. I agree with her on that, I just don't agree with making it complicated

My simplified point is this: No-one made it an issue before. Everyone was happy. Those who were not one hundred percent comfortable shrugged it off, because it was not super-important. We all got along.

Now, we are drawing lines of sexuality and gender. That might be who we are, yes, I agree with that, but does it not become superficial when it is worn like a badge and demands attention?

My biggest worry is that this will lead to other things. What is next? Pronouns? And then? Gender equality in staff demographics? It may have a domino effect that, in the end, is going to split the community.

RavenSong wrote:Straight
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual - Mostly straight
Bisexual
Biseual - Mostly gay
Asexual
Demisexual
Pansexual
Undecided
Does it Matter?

Yeah that's pretty good, although I would change "straight" to "heterosexual" and combine "gay" and "lesbian" into "homosexual", and substitute in the bi subdivisions appropriately. So like this:

> Heterosexual
> Homosexual
> Bisexual, mostly hetero
> Bisexual, mostly homo
> Bisexual
> Pansexual
> Demisexual
> Asexual
> Undecided/questioning

RavenSong wrote:I do wish you'd speak English...

StargazingSerpent wrote:My biggest worry is that this will lead to other things. What is next? Pronouns? And then? Gender equality in staff demographics? It may have a domino effect that, in the end, is going to split the community.

Slippery slope argument.

This isn't the Democratic Party; I wouldn't worry about over zealous political correctness.
There's been no precedent for it on this forum, and I don't see things changing.

Very well, Leeward. I will concede. You proceed with your suggestion. If it is approved, so be it. I will leave it at that.

Sev wrote:Why is it even needed?

This isn't a dating website, and it should have no bearing on how we interact with the other people on here.

It isn't ! OK, time to make a vent topic about leaving.

I talked to Adagio about this, and my feeling is the same as RavenSong. A long list of labels is overwhelming and possibly confusing.

Cape_F0X wrote:It isn't ! OK, time to make a vent topic about leaving.

It's something that practically everyone has done; in my case, I made one and then never ended up leaving at all.
You should try it some time. XD

Leeward wrote: > Heterosexual
> Homosexual
> Bisexual, mostly hetero
> Bisexual, mostly homo
> Bisexual
> Pansexual
> Demisexual
> Asexual
> Undecided/questioning

Why not also merge all the bisexual together. It's fairly pointless otherwise. Either if I say "bi, mostly homo" either the mostly information is unimportant because I'm open to women or I don't particularly want to be approached by women so functionally it's just gay.

Also, what's the point of demisexual? I've never even heard of it. There's no need for obscure terms.

Leeward describes herself as demisexual.

It basically means that you're sexually attracted to those that you have an emotional bond with.