Where is my sexuality at if my motto is simply, "If they're

>>8132483
You're tomboyphile.

Sounds like you're overall just straight with some bicurious penchants, dude.

"Oh, but I've been with guys", yeah, that happens. More often than you'd think actually, but you're attracted to the female form overall, and aren't attracted to the male form. That's literally all that matters.

A bunch of insecure faggots might yell 'but traps are gay, etc., but really who gives a shit. Do you.

>>8132483
You're pansexual with sexual practices (no penis) preferences and body (muscles, bodyhair) preference.

As long as "gender" doesn't matter to you to find who to love or who to fuck, you are and forever will be pansexual.

Like everyone you have your preferences. My bff is lesbian and she (almost) only loves redhead. Does that mean she is something even more stretched than lesbian ? No. Lesbian with preferences.

Gynephilic

>>8132483
>Am I just generic bisexual?
yes.
>it kinda feels like doing the term "bisexual" a disservice because I wouldn't bang a regular masculine dude.
And your average straight man wouldn't fuck a hideous pig just because she's female.
Does that do the term "heterosexual" a disservice?
There's this thing called taste, and it's a real thing.
Unlike some genders out there.

>>8132916
Do you see pansexuals as bisexuals ?

>>8132922
Yes.

>>8132932
Then from your POV OP is truly bisexual.
But I consider that BI-sexuals are people who love TWO kinds of people, males and females. A bisexual would not love femboys, trannies, Futa porn etc...
A pansexual however loves anyone in the human race, with unavoidable preferences cause human isn't perfect. For example, I know someone who likes only the combination of boobs and vagina, but doesn't consider herself a lesbian but a pansexual with preferences, cause she considered mtf nos as women but still attractive, and boobless cis women as unattractive but still women.

>>8132979
That just boils down to whether you're a binarist or a reformist on gender.

>>8133029
I think OP's opinion on the subject is more important than ours to define what she is.

And I don't think binarism and reformism are the two sole possible opinions on gender, if you mean by reformism the will to consider thousands of nonsense new categories. I'm pansexual in who I love, but I'm also pan- in how I see human race. I consider the even idea of gender is absurd, cause dividing population in categories have always been nazi stuff, especially if it makes no point to have those categories. Why wouldn't people start considering human kind as a whole ? I bet that with this point of view, homo people would start to date anyone without previous dick verification. Putting limits on who you give or give not yourself the right to love bevore even meeting the people is a very serious case of stupidity.

>>8132979
>A bisexual would not love femboys, trannies, Futa porn etc...
Yes they would. Bi = str8 + gay, therefore including all three of what you mentioned.

>>8133092
>dividing population in categories have always been nazi stuff
Mate, that shit has been going on since pretty much the beginning of humanity.

And just abolishing categories is in itself a retarded idea.
Imagine a library where all books are just arbitrarily placed on the shelves. It just wouldn't work.
Imagine demographic research without categories.
It just wouldn't work.

It's about as stupid as the "let's get rid of borders" mentality too many people have.

>>8133115
Yes, straight + gay. If you narrow the example just to futa (cause femboys are mainly considered men), the gay wouldn't love the boobs and a straight (from a male pov, to simplify) wouldn't love the cock. so if neither of them love futa, why would futa include in one+the other ?

>>8133133
I'm all right with getting rid of borders.

If I take your example of the books, or even better the example of skin color. No one would say that all humans have the same skin color. But why, and where, would you place the limits between who is white and who is black ? (The problem remains the same if you add a middle category.) Where would you objectively place the limit ?
If you take Leo DiCaprio, Barack Obama and Will Smith for example. Anyone would say the order from darkest to lightest is Leo>Obama>Smith. But why would the limit between black and white people be between Leo and Obama ? Why wouldn't it be between Obama and Smith ?
There is no objective limit. As there is no objective limit between orange and red if you class your books in color dégradé. There is many variety of humans throughout the world. Everyone is different from any other. But if you start placing boundaries, it won't make any sense unless you set each human in a different categorie.

>>8133138
Someone post this faggot the video proving futa is straight.

>implying he'll watch it

>>8133188
Obama is white, with some black ancestry.

>>8133223
The example still works. Why do you place the limit between black and white between Obama and Smith but not between Leo and Obama ?
Doesn't make any more sense...

>>8133214
Watch and like

>>8133138
This is really dumb.

>If some people don't like chocolate and some other people don't like vanilla, how can anyone like neopolitan ice cream?

>>8133188
>I'm all right with getting rid of borders.
Are you also alright with there being no indicator of wheter you fall under US law or Saudi law?

>Where would you objectively place the limit ?
It's not about objectivity.
It's about having an overview of samples to work with.
It's simply more efficient.
Which might mean having to place arbitrary boundaries, whether skin color, age or height.
And you'll always have people that fall just outside the margins, but that's simply an unfortunate side effect.

>>8133340
Go tell people harassed everyday by *phobias they are just unfortunate side effects.

>>8133328
Some people will like napolitan, but these people will not be the union of people not liking vanilla and people not liking chocolate.
If you take two kinds of people : liking blue but disliking pink and yellow, and liking pink, but disliking blue and yellow. If you *fusion* both kinds, would someone of the new kind like yellow ? No. People liking yellow would be found elsewhere.
>Blue=women, pink=men, yellow=futa for the metaphore

>>8133372
>they are just unfortunate side effects.
They are not.
Having to buy children's shoes because you have small feet is an unfortunate side effect.
Discrimination is applying the labels "good" and "bad" on people based on issues that should not matter to a civilised person.
You cannot solve it by dissolving all categories.

That's like believing racism will end when we al have the same skin color.
People will find a way to discriminate between "us" and "them".

>>8133372
>you aren't a green-liker, you like a different shade of green to me

File: bts-tae-hyung-v-bts-boy-Favim.com-4272832.gif (2MB, 268x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 268x300px

>>8132483
>"If they're cute, gender doesn't matter"
>I desire mainly someone with feminine physical traits?
>I also have a minor dislike for penis on my partner and it's not something I enjoy touching.

Damn are you me?
I usually say bisexual if someone asks but pansexual probably fits better. My sexuality is essentially, i like girls or anyone who looks like one

Straight people (men) usually do like futa though, because if it were the cock that disgusts them, then straight porn would simply not exist.
Futa is basically straight porn but without having an actual guy involved.
It's basically the safest form of straight porn.

>>8133404
No. Discrimination is not deciding one's good one's bad. The word comes from the same latin as the word "difference". Discrimination is when you artificially place a boundary or when you set one set into different categories. that's the meaning of the word. If you say there are black and white race but both are equal in rights, that's still called discrimination.
That's why things like homophobia are more than discrimination, it's more than just a boundary, it's disliking one more than the other.
Then, since homophobia wouldn't exist if people didn't know the concept of homosexuality, and since the concepts of homo- and heterosexualities woulder exist if it weren't such a thing as gender, then why not abandoning gender ?
If you see humanity as a whole, then you cannot tell or even designate a group to hate, cause "they" are human and "us" too, and this applies to sex, race and sexuality discriminations.
You mess up categories with diversity. If you take back the example of the countries. If you remove frontiers, that wouldn't mean that people would live in the same island, or in the same valley, or on the same mountain, It would just mean they live on the same world.

>>8133490
Thanks.

>>8133498
You mean Futa-with-girls kind of porn. I mean both Futa, Futa-with-Futa, Men-with-Futa and Futa-with girls kinds of porn.

>>8133533
>it's disliking one more than the other.
By wrongly applying the subjective labels of good and bad.
>Then, since homophobia wouldn't exist if people didn't know the concept of homosexuality, and since the concepts of homo- and heterosexualities woulder exist if it weren't such a thing as gender, then why not abandoning gender?
Homosexuality exists regardless of whether we acknowledge it as a concept (because that's what actually happens) or not.
Thus since it exists it can be used to discriminate.
Same goes for all differences.

>If you see humanity as a whole, then you cannot tell or even designate a group to hate
But you cannot see humanity as a whole without seeing the different parts it is made out of, simply by the fact that we're not identical.
We're individuals with common characteristics, some of which not everybody shares, and thus we can discriminate.

>You mess up categories with diversity.
Diversity IS categories.
It would be impossible to have diversity without categories.

>>8133490
>My sexuality is essentially, i like girls or anyone who looks like one
gynesexual is the word for that i believe

>>8133626
Homosexuality is a concept. Without it, gay would be considered, as by themselves as by the society, as pansexuals with preferences. And this concept applies to everyone on earth. So homophobia can't hate the group A on profit of the group A, that would make no sense.

We're not individuals with common caracteristics, we're humans with individual caracteristics. The only common caracteristics we have are common to all humans (lol twins exeption).

If you have in front of you a screen with a whole bunch of pixels on it. Every pixel has a different color. You can't manage to create separated groups wihtch would make sense. That fact doesn't change that they have all different colors.
Other example : you have a pack of six candies : pink, red, orange, yellow, green and blue. Each color characteristic that you can draw out of a candy is shared by no other else, so there is no common characteristic else than being a candy, which is shared by the whole set. It's the same for mankind.

>>8133768
>as pansexuals with preferences.
>preferences
You can discriminate based on preference.
>The only common caracteristics we have are common to all humans
That's a very simple view, and not one I would advise.
Even if our characteristics are the same (which they are not unless you're going to abstract them to the point of being invisible) they don't express the same, which again creates differences.
Differences that can be used to discriminate.

>so there is no common characteristic else than being a candy
In your example there would indeed not be any.
But in reality, the color red is made using diferent ingredients than the color blue.
The color yellow might be made with ingredients derived from nuts, so the yellow candy would require by law to have a warning label.

So everyone has things in common with some people that they do not have with other people.

And even if being human was the only thing people had in common, then holding mere opinions would be enough to cause some people to resent others.

>>8133883
>You can discriminate based on preference.
yes, but subjective preference tjat wouldn't have specific word to describe it.

There are actually people who share similar alleles in their genes, that's a fact, but those common caracteristics don't have a specific word to describe it, and that's the whole point.
If you don't invent a concept and a word to describe a phenomenon or a caracteristic, then ti make up a discrimination based on that caracteristic is impossible.
I went too far when I said what I said about common caracteristics. I meant that common caracteristics shared by not all of mankind don't deserve a specific word, else that's just basically asking for concentration camps. Again, I go too far, but you see my point.