Voodoo Canapé (voodoo_canape) wrote in notquitequeer,
Voodoo Canapé

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Top of the Hots

I was going to post something truly awe inspiring but, instead, I just fiddled around with the Live Journal mechanic, dredging up some sexuality (as interest) figures, and here they are, in case you were interested, in order of popularity/solidarity;

Bisexuality : 384 communities and 451 users
and Bisexual: 389 communities and 434 users

Homosexuality : 387 communities and 427 users
and Homosexual: 407 communities and 377 users

Pansexuality : 160 communities and 429 users
and Pansexual: 240 communities and 402 users

Asexuality : 67 communities and 416 users
and Asexual: 96 communities and 202 users

Metrosexuality : 17 communities and 252 users
and Metrosexual: 27 communities and 208 users

Omnisexuality : 17 communities and 102 users
and Omnisexual: 21 communities and 60 users

Hetrosexuality : 12 communities and 20 users
and Hetrosexual: 10 communities and 20 users

And, by means of a control;

Sexuality = 390 communities and 453 users

Now, obviously, these results are not representative of those who didn't feel the need to express an interest and are modified by the LJ engine; itself seeming to cap, somewhat mysteriously, numbers of more than 460 (it can't all be user antithesis to large groups of likeminded individuals) but they are telling, in that one may form an idea of what is hot and what is not in expressed sexuality.

Did I miss any, anyone care to discuss your place in the order - assuming that the average heterosexual doesn't need to shout about it where the average homosexual might - and could this be any more boring? Let me know!
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
Sorry to all for the state of my grammar on the above post. I normally rely on the edit feature but, even so, this is a poor first draft. I hope that you will be able to read around the gaps. Cheers.
ACE for omnisexuality. i'm really glad that people are actually acknowledging that it exists because i get way to many comments like "isn't that the same as bisexuality?"

and yay for asexuality. because i wish i was.
It might help if you spelt 'heterosexual' correctly, you know! ;¬) Just removing my pedantic hat now...

Also, what sort of response did you get from 'sapiosexuality'? I'd be interested to know.
Sapiosexual: 6 communities and 59 users
Sapiosexuality: 22 communities and 478 users (interesting)

Heterosexual: 325 communities and 337 users
Heterosexuality: 309 communities 361 users (there you go, and I was far from alone in my misspelling, still lower than homo and bi)
Yay for asexuality!

I didn't realize the numbers were so high, but of course, this is a list of interests, and we know that just because someone is interested in asexuality does not mean they are actually asexual.

But the term is becoming known.
I am surprised that they were not higher, to be honest, but agree with you that the numbers, as they are, are no indication of actual sexuality. Asexuality, before metro and sapio, was the newest flavour of fashionable society over here last year and all I would read would see some literati or other trying to explain it in few words, with little research. I think the term is misused in and of itself but it is a pleasure to see someone singing honestly its praises, you may yet turn me around on the subject batshua, it is yet another accusation toward my lack of sexual leaning.
Well, I myself am rather mixed up.

I identify as straight when I don't want to discuss it, asexual when I'm up for a brief discussion, and hetero bi-asexual when I feel like seriously explaining myself.

Sexuality is a very complicated thing.
Indeed and, at the very least, you are not alone in being mixed up about it.
When I was younger there was a forlorn pressure to assert my heterosexuality (spelt correctly), replaced more recently by the pressure to come out of some closet or other, but how can I identify with so little information to go on; passing quickly (and painfully) through puberty and inheriting little more than a basic, faceless and, or so it feels to me, genderless lust as (thankfully infrequent) automatic response; I retained - by choice, or lack of alternate feeling - a most insular virginity until mid way into my twenty-fifth year and, while my one true relationship to date involved the most fun I have ever had doting upon another human, I find myself happy, but for the aforementioned pressure to know, in my 'singledom'.

I continue to draw strength from my romanticism - that right person, irrespective of gender spiel that, for some reason, just works for me - but remain unwilling to cite my eagerness to please as cornerstone of some hidden sexuality, it just becomes less important (though harder to explain away) as you get older.
Ah, so you've found Someone Else! It's a remarkable experience, isn't it?

I've had three relationships, but really only one of them Matters, and it's going on four years now. I was very lucky to find an understanding sweetheart.

I think when you have an ambiguous or unusual orientation, it's a bit more difficult to find someone who "gets" you, but when you do, it can be very rewarding.
Yes, it was, the relationship lasted until it became apparent that I was only engaging in the sexual aspect for my partners gratification (about eighteen months). It is ironic then that I, upon facing this issue, was the one who, ever doubting myself, asked that that most physical source of intimacy continue and my partner was the one, being infinitely wiser, who helped me to see that I, at least, would lose but little from the passing into close-friendship.

My fear, of change in this instance, was already aggravated by moral decision to admit the revelation that sex was more of a courtesy and must explain my resistance to let go of our relationship, such as it was after our talks, but I believe that love and respect won out. I certainly feel less guilt over the whole thing than I used to and, in hindsight, there was no other destination, only various ways for us to get there.

Since then I have been analysing, and overanalysing, why I failed to realise sooner, you know; was I straight but screwed up, was I just getting bored, did I not discriminate between the positive and negative forms of attention that I craved? The only answer that I have to fall back on is my need to know myself - this was, you must remember, my first real relationship - and to hope against hope that I was simply a 'late bloomer' and that everything would fall into place with the right person. Now I have the best friend that anyone could ask for but more doubts than ever as I fast change from the boy to the man next door.
Well, it's always an interesting journey, but keep in mind that you are Not Alone.

There are others out there, and I think that makes finding out who you are so much easier in many ways.
I'm sorry batshua, I didn't mean to bring you down (or go on and on), it is both great as journey and to know that I am not alone. Thanks pet.
No, no, you didn't bring me down! It's always uplifting to know other folks are on the same journey. :)
So. I thought asexuality was a gender orientation, not a sexual orientation. I guess that would be androgyny, then. I'm not good at this English language thing.

My sexuality is pretty much whatever I feel like doing at the moment. Self-definition to such a great extent is a little... over-zealous. Or something. But, hell. Whatever makes you happy.
Self-definition to such a great extent is a little... over-zealous. Or something. But, hell. Whatever makes you happy.

I'm sorry to say that I find this is a bit of a fatuous comment, definition exists to communicate something of ourselves and without or in search of it we are generally far from happy (I speak for myself here). I see your point entirely but I'm unsure;

1) Why you felt it necessary to communicate that you were not going to communicate anything

2) Who it was directed toward anyway?
I had to take a minute to look up "fatuous," but having done so I feel I should thank you for enriching my vocabulary. So thanks.

You'll excuse my digression from sexual orientation for a minute, but I have kind of a (hypocritical, obviously) philosophical hang-up on this: to define one's 'self' in concrete terms, no matter how beautifully precise they are, restricts the limits of one's self to the limits of the words themself. Oneself being an actual human being and not a communicated idea, this creates an illusion of self which eclipses actual the actual self, creating discord between what is perceived and what is 'real.' This prevents self-realization, without which happiness is... well... just a word.

Sorry about that. Thanks for your indulgence; we now return to your originally scheduled reply:

1) & 2) It was just a general response to the post, in particular the line "...anyone care to discuss your place in the order..."

That would be my place in the order. Or at least, in relation to the order if not actually contained within it.
I, in turn, am sorry also; there is always the possibility of a little defensiveness when I speak of myself which I am willing to accept full responsibility for, then and now.

I personally am interested in the search for the self, true, I may never know enough to form 'concrete' opinion but that which I do discover, adequately worded, will afford me both conversational shortcut, away from repetitive misunderstanding, and link to such communities as this one. Again, I understand your point and, indeed, why should you seek to find yourself when the destination varies from day to day but, for me, such philosophy would only serve as all purpose excuse, though beautifully thought out, not to think in any great depth about these issues.

Please do not feel that I am trying to pick on you, as that isn't my intention, I just don't think one can hide from words, in words. I went through an extended period where I felt the opposite; where those who sought to pigeonhole me couldn't understand me etc. It's simply was not the case in my experience, though there is much you can persuade yourself using philosophy, ask Spinoza!
• No problem, you didn't come off defensive.

• I still don't think that words provide an adequate means of searching, but I agree the search is important. As is camaraderie and/or communication, something I usually overlook.

• Sure.