If I am a male and I like herms/dickgirls am I gay? Or if a girl likes cuntboys/maleherms is she a lesbian?

let me hear your thoughts

The true question of our generation.

I don't think this is the case. Personally, I've looked at content featuring this type of fetish and liked it, but I know for a fact that I'm a straight male in matters regarding real life attraction. For instance, I've never been attracted to another man, nor do I look at gay pornography in other, more generic genres featuring actual people. I've only ever been attracted to girls, even since discovering the stuff that's findable on here years ago. I think this is because there's more to sexual orientation than what the genitals of a particular individual are when looking at fictional porn. Besides, these days you can call yourself whatever you want to and get away with it. So whatever you choose to label yourself, in addition to what others label you as, is fairly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I reckon it's just a kink and that it's not really anything to be concerned about.

I mean, they're women with penises, men with vaginas, or men/women with both.

They're just genitals, who the person is is what truly matters, really. But I mean, regardless, it's sexuality. It's your deal and no one has a right to call you something ur not.

Got a bit serious here but I hope my point was made, ahaha

Liking dickgirl art as a man doesn't make you gay. Being attracted to men irl, makes you gay.

I enjoy feral art, but that doesn't make me a zoophile. It's a separation of fantasy from reality.

I'd say no. I'd say if you like the female form be it women, futa, or in some cases traps, then you're not gay you're likely just. Hmm I guess penis optional might be the best to say? Or you know " Why not both? "

Is this a variation of the 'are traps gay?' meme?

you are gay if you are a man who is exclusive attracted to men or a woman who is exclusively attracted to women. its not rocket science.

siikaprinssi said:
you are gay if you are a man who is exclusive attracted to men or a woman who is exclusively attracted to women. its not rocket science.

And bi if anywhere in between.

69% gay

siikaprinssi said:
you are gay if you are a man who is exclusive attracted to men or a woman who is exclusively attracted to women. its not rocket science.

oh, so you're saying "there's only two genders"
i'm glad you've taken the red pill!

/me takes the pink pill

Under 5 hours for the thread to get unnecessarily political, good stuff

Munkelzahn said:
oh, so you're saying "there's only two genders"
i'm glad you've taken the red pill!

/me takes the pink pill

what the fuck

siikaprinssi said:
you are gay if you are a man who is exclusive attracted to men or a woman who is exclusively attracted to women. its not rocket science.

MissChu said:
And bi if anywhere in between.

I feel like this sort of absolutism isn't very useful. Almost everyone could be argued to have some same-sex attraction, given ideal circumstances, at some point in their life.

When a word applies to everyone, it ceases to be useful for anyone.

I think it's reasonable to say that if someone is heavily interested in one sex over the other, even if they have some attraction to the other, they are not bisexual. In most circumstances, a woman who sleeps with women, has relationships with women, looks at pornography with just women, and so on, has a lot more in common with people identifying as lesbians than people identifying as bisexual even if she once saw a guy's dick and thought "well that's just dandy."

I'm not saying you need to be equally attracted to both genders to be bisexual, either. That's a different sort of absolutism. If you consider your attraction to both genders to be significant enough to be important, I think that's a good benchmark for being bisexual.

The purpose of these labels is IMO to hook up, so the question isn't what you "are" (which is far too difficult to properly resolve, and certainly shouldn't be extrapolated from idealized fictional representations).

The questions are (in relation to *actual real people*) : Sex with attractive male Y/N? Sex with attractive female Y/N? (so for example if you like sex with females, romance with females, sex with males but not romance with males, you might just say you're straight and have done with it, depending on your priorities. If that's how things really are, it would be less false than claiming you're bi.)

If you haven't tried either, the correct answer is "Mu", IMO. Don't extrapolate when you have zero samples.

Furries r gay so yes.
Really thought, I'd say it depends. If it looks masculine and that's the attractive point, then maybe. Otherwise no, it's no different than a girl with a strap on.

I mean, I don't think "gay" or "straight" is really important.

You're attracted to different types personalities. (Sporty, nerdy, mellow, gentle, upbeat, hyper, catty, chill..) That's cool.

You're attracted to different body parts. That's okay. You're allowed to think, say, boobs are nice, but pussy is.... weird looking.

You're allowed to think that while pussy is weird looking, it feels nice.

You can be attracted to all kinds of things. You can have a lot of neat fantasies without it necessarily defining your sexual orientation.

Orientation doesn't matter.

Attraction matters. Compatibility matters.

Just please also remember one thing: real life trans peeps do not generally enjoy being someone's fetish. Depending on the person, they may be extremely sensitive to their body's differences, and may not appreciate the sort of stimulation you'd expect. Others may embrace it, or any level in between, with variations depending on the hour of the day, the current temperature and the phase of the moon.

We're all humans, so remember that, when you're dealing with real life people, don't objectify them.

Clawdragons said:
I feel like this sort of absolutism isn't very useful. Almost everyone could be argued to have some same-sex attraction, given ideal circumstances, at some point in their life.

When a word applies to everyone, it ceases to be useful for anyone.

I think it's reasonable to say that if someone is heavily interested in one sex over the other, even if they have some attraction to the other, they are not bisexual. In most circumstances, a woman who sleeps with women, has relationships with women, looks at pornography with just women, and so on, has a lot more in common with people identifying as lesbians than people identifying as bisexual even if she once saw a guy's dick and thought "well that's just dandy."

I'm not saying you need to be equally attracted to both genders to be bisexual, either. That's a different sort of absolutism. If you consider your attraction to both genders to be significant enough to be important, I think that's a good benchmark for being bisexual.

Oh no, I agree entirely, people self-label and label each other way too easily. Personally, I wouldn't even know how to describe myself in terms of sexuality. But if people want to call themselves gay/straight/bi/questioning/whatever, fine by me, I like to think that most everyone is at least a little bit fluid in their attractions.

Munkelzahn said:
oh, so you're saying "there's only two genders"
i'm glad you've taken the red pill!

/me takes the pink pill

Well, in fact no matter what are you saying or wish, every living creature can have only one of two genders: XX or XY. If it something different then you are a nature's mistake. Sorry, no offence, but it's how biology works.
P.S. Sorry for bad english.

kokodrill said:
Well, in fact no matter what are you saying or wish, every living creature can have only one of two genders: XX or XY. If it something different then you are a nature's mistake. Sorry, no offence, but it's how biology works.
P.S. Sorry for bad english.

Actually , according to the species, it's one of two systems - (XX=female XY=male) or (ZW=female ZZ=male)

There is also X0 , but XX/XY vs ZW/ZZ covers most species.

Anyway, the post you are responding to is (probably intentional) drama bait.

kokodrill said:
Well, in fact no matter what are you saying or wish, every living creature can have only one of two genders: XX or XY. If it something different then you are a nature's mistake. Sorry, no offence, but it's how biology works.
P.S. Sorry for bad english.

Be carefull of confusong sex and gender. Sex is dick and pussy, gender is the mental "package" (ie. how someone feels or behaves).

Regarding futas, well the closest you wpuld be that i can deduce based on the classical sexualities is bisexual.

kokodrill said:
Well, in fact no matter what are you saying or wish, every living creature can have only one of two genders: XX or XY. If it something different then you are a nature's mistake. Sorry, no offence, but it's how biology works.
P.S. Sorry for bad english.

what about all the species with zw system? or x0 system? or uv system? or what about the reptiles that’s sex is only based on incubation temperatures? is majority of the animal kingdom nature’s mistakes or

Okay, i admit, i was wrong. But we are talking here about humans, right? And i am definitely not a reptile.

Are lesbians using strap-ons straight?

kokodrill said:
Okay, i admit, i was wrong. But we are talking here about humans, right? And i am definitely not a reptile.

No, you're not, but if we insist on proper taxonomic classification, you would be a fish. At least insofar as "Fish" has any scientific meaning at all.

You're also a monkey.

Taxonomy can be weird sometimes.

Anyway, if you're trying to argue for clear-cut divisions, biology is not your friend, because fundamentally while classifications like saying "I'm a human" are useful to us, they don't actually have objective meaning.

There is no line that you can draw between a human and, say, a bee. There is only a slow gradient of changes through time.

Clawdragons said:
No, you're not, but if we insist on proper taxonomic classification, you would be a fish. At least insofar as "Fish" has any scientific meaning at all.

You're also a monkey.

Taxonomy can be weird sometimes.

Anyway, if you're trying to argue for clear-cut divisions, biology is not your friend, because fundamentally while classifications like saying "I'm a human" are useful to us, they don't actually have objective meaning.

There is no line that you can draw between a human and, say, a bee. There is only a slow gradient of changes through time.

The usual line involves reproductive compatibility.

Clawdragons said:
No, you're not, but if we insist on proper taxonomic classification, you would be a fish. At least insofar as "Fish" has any scientific meaning at all.

You're also a monkey.

Taxonomy can be weird sometimes.

Anyway, if you're trying to argue for clear-cut divisions, biology is not your friend, because fundamentally while classifications like saying "I'm a human" are useful to us, they don't actually have objective meaning.

There is no line that you can draw between a human and, say, a bee. There is only a slow gradient of changes through time.

Seems like you went a bit too much into relativism. We could also argue that there are no distinct things at all because everything is fundamental particles (molinistic nihilsm) which is patently absurd as it confuses building blocks with the thing they make up.

Also, the evolutionary tree seems to contradict your last statement since there is not one single line titled ''everything'' but many, many branches of distinct organisms.

Random said:
Are lesbians using strap-ons straight?

Only if they attach truck nuts to the base.

Haljkljavahlibrz said:

Seems like you went a bit too much into relativism. We could also argue that there are no distinct things at all because everything is fundamental particles (molinistic nihilsm) which is patently absurd as it confuses building blocks with the thing they make up.

People trying to argue for just two genders are typically trying to argue from a position that tries very hard to be "objective". I think it's important to understand that the divisions we see are largely a manner of social construct rather than of objective fact.

I think these are useful distinctions. Just because a distinction is not absolute doesn't mean that it can't be used to gain greater understanding of the world, to categorize things, and so on. We make and refine these categories because they are useful.

And the fact is, the statement "there are only two genders" is NOT useful for understanding our society.

Also, the evolutionary tree seems to contradict your last statement since there is not one single line titled ''everything'' but many, many branches of distinct organisms.

I'm not talking about a single branch. I'm saying that everything (or, at least, certainly all animals - since there are some weird things that happen near the base of the tree) is part of the same tree.

We share a common ancestor with bees. If you trace our evolutionary history back to that ancestor, there is never a point where you say "this child is a different species from its parent."

And when you reach that common ancestor, you can reverse directions. You'll never get a parent that gives birth to a different species child. Until, going forward in time, you reach bees.

There is never a "break" in the lineage, no matter which direction you go, so there is never any objective line you can draw between species.

Random said:
The usual line involves reproductive compatibility.

What I described above is a particular phenomena through time, but the same can happen across geography. If you look at what is called a "ring species", we can see different groups. Group A can interbreed with group B, group B with C, C with D, D with E, but A and E cannot interbreed.

So is A the same species as E, or not?

The interbreeding distinction is another example of something which is generally useful but not an example of any true objective distinction.

Ok, you explained your position politely and calmly, which is becomming a rarity today.

The one last thing that bugs me is the confusing the terms of sex/gender. As i uderstand is, sex is "what what you have between your legs" and gender is the collection of behaviors and norms associated with one or the other sex.

See also: https://youtu.be/Q2_jgB5z0BQ

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
The one last thing that bugs me is the confusing the terms of sex/gender. As i uderstand is, sex is "what what you have between your legs" and gender is the collection of behaviors and norms associated with one or the other sex.

Yep. E621 misuses the term 'gender', and you have to wonder how much that contributes to a) silliness in discussions like this, and b) "You didn't tag X character's gender right according to lore" wars (because 'gender' cannot be neatly and reliably separated from lore[culture], whereas 'sex' can, and 'sex' is what e621 actually means by male / female / herm / etc)

savageorange said:
Yep. E621 misuses the term 'gender', and you have to wonder how much that contributes to a) silliness in discussions like this, and b) "You didn't tag X character's gender right according to lore" wars (because 'gender' cannot be neatly and reliably separated from lore[culture], whereas 'sex' can, and 'sex' is what e621 actually means by male / female / herm / etc)

Though on a porn website, it might just be easier to label sex as gender. Which I'm assuming is part of the reasoning behind its usage.

I'm pretty sure it *is* part of the reasoning. It should certainly be taken into account. But it's less clear whether that choice solves more problems than it creates.

savageorange said:
Yep. E621 misuses the term 'gender', and you have to wonder how much that contributes to a) silliness in discussions like this, and b) "You didn't tag X character's gender right according to lore" wars (because 'gender' cannot be neatly and reliably separated from lore[culture], whereas 'sex' can, and 'sex' is what e621 actually means by male / female / herm / etc)

A lot of this is because many many wikipages on the site were created a decade ago. and while a lot of this seems 'obvious'... well, general knowledge of trans-stuff was a lot less common back then. We've come a long way in a short time. :)

That said, it doesn't excuse what *is* a rather gross oversight, not only from the standpoint of clarifying confusion, but from the standpoint of simply being more accurate--and respectful.

So... Yeah. Let's change that. I've got the blessings from above. Let's actually say sex when we mean sex.

This is gonna be a pretty intracate project, mostly on account of the fact that we're going to have to rename several of our frequently linked wiki pages like howto:tag_genders and whatnot. .... I might be over complicating this, but I feel like it might be best to work together to compile a list of pages that will need things like howto:tag_genders changed to howto:tag_sexes so that they can be adjusted at at once, rather than dribbled inconsistantly. Some of these pages are also locked, so they'll require admin assistance, but that won't be a problem.

There is also the problem that I am very very busy right now with iRL stress.

I'd like some people to help me out... if you're interested, PM me. Maybe we can get a lil discord set up or something to get our eggs in a basket before we crack them all at once.

or something.

I could be over complicating this, too. I am bad about over complicating things.

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
Ok, you explained your position politely and calmly, which is becomming a rarity today.

Hey, I really appreciate that. Thanks!

In all seriousness, I'm going to say no. For one, I'm asexual and I find them to be hot. I also find hung girly bois hot and have considered myself bi in the past, but that's beside the point.

My gay friend finds herms and dickgirls to be a huge turnoff. I think it's the boobs. Though I have gotten him to admit he likes this one:
post #426164

If liking girls with dicks was a gay thing, shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't I be all meh and he be all YES!?

It's anecdotal, yes, but it is compelling.