It's become more apparent to me after being a passive, watching member of the furry community (not active as in going to cons and drawing and stuff)for several years that sexuality is definitely NOT as simple as gay or straight or bi or what have you.

After reading posts and talking to people who say things like "I'm only gay for furries" or "I only have interest in this fetish for this particular reason" and many others, I have come to the conclusion that our current understanding of sexuality is insufficient. It seems as though people are NOT attracted to genders as society dictates, but rather we have a sexual affinity for physical traits instead. In real life, certain traits are usually exclusive to a certain gender, giving the illusion that we have an attraction to genders. In fantasy porn however, we can overcome these limits, making it a critically important tool for studying and understanding our affinity for physical traits.

From what I understand, the brain reacts visual stimuli in 4 key ways. (at least on image forums)

1) Affinity: The brain likes what it sees. Ex: You give a picture an upvote and/or favorite it, perhaps giving positive feedback in the comment section.

2) Neutrality: The brain is okay with what it sees. It neither likes or dislikes it. Ex: You look at a picture and don't like or fave. You might leave a comment giving feedback about how to improve the image or you leave an unrelated comment.

3) Apathy/Rejection: The brain does no care about what it sees and skips over it. Ex: You look at a picture for a very short period of time and scroll over it, not even bothering to put your mouse over it to see a larger thumbnail.

4) Disdain: The brain does not like what it sees. Ex: You go out of your way to give the image a downvote and/or leave negative feedback in the comment section.

These apply to sexual stimulus as well when you're browsing for porn. So let's say there is a guy who identifies as straight, sees this image: post #359373 and is aroused by it and is now doubting his sexuality. If we ignore the current stigma of gay/straight/bi and base our analysis on traits instead this makes much more sense. It could be explained guy doesn't have an affinity for the female gender, but rather traits typically associated with females, like the curvature, the long hair, and the pectorals which here resemble breasts. The dick just doesn't bother him.

In other words, this guy has an affinity for the 3 former traits and a neutrality towards the penis, resulting in an overall pleasant experience. As to whether or not affinity and disdain cancel eachother out cannot be said for certain. It is a case by case basis of hos strong those reactions are that determines whether or not the person will feel an overall affinity or disdain for the image.

People today might dismiss these cases as simply "confusion", but that's not at all true. People know exactly what they like. They general populace just doesn't like that they can't apply a broad label to it like they do everything else.

The mad scientist version of the point I'm trying to get across:
Labels are insufficient! Gay, Straight, Lesbian, Bisexual, Pansexual, etc. THEY ARE ALL LIES! (Yes, they can still apply to sexual acts for the most part, so changing the tagging system isn't necessary) Applying a label on ones sexuality is WRONG!

Perhaps I should conduct studies on this? What do you think?

That the current labeling of sexuality is inaccurate at best and outright destructive at worst (public hate or discrimination against a certain label) is known.
Alas, it will take some time until all non-scientific publications and the public opinion on the subject will reflect that, labeling things and calling it a day is easier.

I don't know dude. You have to consider how everyone has different ways to define one's sexuality. For example, a girl is turned on by lesbian porn but is in a relationship with a dude. Some say she's a straight girl that likes lesbian porn, some say she's bi, and some say she's a closet lesbian. IMO, I believe that one's sexuality is determined by what that individual wants to be. If a girl wants to be lesbian, she's a lesbian and vice versa

TL;DR penis is delicious.

TheHuskyK9 said:
I don't know dude. You have to consider how everyone has different ways to define one's sexuality. For example, a girl is turned on by lesbian porn but is in a relationship with a dude. Some say she's a straight girl that likes lesbian porn, some say she's bi, and some say she's a closet lesbian. IMO, I believe that one's sexuality is determined by what that individual wants to be. If a girl wants to be lesbian, she's a lesbian and vice versa

That sounds way too much like "sexuality is a choice", which is just wrong.

TheHuskyK9 said:
I don't know dude. You have to consider how everyone has different ways to define one's sexuality. For example, a girl is turned on by lesbian porn but is in a relationship with a dude. Some say she's a straight girl that likes lesbian porn, some say she's bi, and some say she's a closet lesbian. IMO, I believe that one's sexuality is determined by what that individual wants to be. If a girl wants to be lesbian, she's a lesbian and vice versa

My post was intended to address sexuality only, not relationships. It's possible to be romantically engaged with someone you have no sexual attraction to. You can even have sex with someone you don't find sexually attractive just to please them. I know that from personal experience. You could still use labels like gay and straight to refer to sexual acts and types of relationships based on gender, but you cannot accurately use these labels to depict a person's sexual desires.

Halite said:
That sounds way too much like "sexuality is a choice", which is just wrong.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if a person wants to be with the same gender, that's their decision. Plus, we have our own opinions and no need to put others down for their opinions

FatherOfGray said:
My post was intended to address sexuality only, not relationships. It's possible to be romantically engaged with someone you have no sexual attraction to. You can even have sex with someone you don't find sexually attractive just to please them. I know that from personal experience. You could still use labels like gay and straight to refer to sexual acts and types of relationships based on gender, but you cannot accurately use these labels to depict a person's sexual desires.

So the overall message is: You can't label a person for their sexual desires, only by their acts?

TheHuskyK9 said:
So the overall message is: You can't label a person for their sexual desires, only by their acts?

So close, but no. Here are some examples:

1A) A man and another man are in a relationship with one another. The relationship they have can be considered gay. This is correct.
1B) Since these men are in a gay relationship, they can be considered gay. This in incorrect.

2) A woman and another woman are having sex with one another. The sex they are having can be considered lesbian sex. This is correct.
2B) Since these women are engaging in lesbian sex, they can be considered lesbians. This is incorrect.

Only relationships and sex acts can be accurately labeled as gay, straight, bi, etc. because they have to do with the genders of the people involved. People's sexuality/sexual preferences cannot adequately be labeled this same way because gender is irrelevant. People are sexually attracted to traits, not genders.

FatherOfGray said:
So close, but no. Here are some examples:

1A) A man and another man are in a relationship with one another. The relationship they have can be considered gay. This is correct.
1B) Since these men are in a gay relationship, they can be considered gay. This in incorrect.

2) A woman and another woman are having sex with one another. The sex they are having can be considered lesbian sex. This is correct.
2B) Since these women are engaging in lesbian sex, they can be considered lesbians. This is incorrect.

Only relationships and sex acts can be accurately labeled as gay, straight, bi, etc. because they have to do with the genders of the people involved. People's sexuality/sexual preferences cannot adequately be labeled this same way because gender is irrelevant. People are sexually attracted to traits, not genders.

Oh ok, I get it now

FatherOfGray said:
So close, but no. Here are some examples:

1A) A man and another man are in a relationship with one another. The relationship they have can be considered gay. This is correct.
1B) Since these men are in a gay relationship, they can be considered gay. This in incorrect.

2) A woman and another woman are having sex with one another. The sex they are having can be considered lesbian sex. This is correct.
2B) Since these women are engaging in lesbian sex, they can be considered lesbians. This is incorrect.

Only relationships and sex acts can be accurately labeled as gay, straight, bi, etc. because they have to do with the genders of the people involved. People's sexuality/sexual preferences cannot adequately be labeled this same way because gender is irrelevant. People are sexually attracted to traits, not genders.

So I'm not gay just because I got my dick sucked by a guy? Praise the Lord!!! Lol

xTheWolf94x said:
So I'm not gay just because I got my dick sucked by a guy? Praise the Lord!!! Lol

With OP's argument, that actually makes perfect sense since I wasn't sexually attracted to him at all, I just wanted to know what the pleasure of oral sex felt like. Generally speaking, I could be considered straight, since probably about 80-90% of gay porn, sexual acts, etc. do not interest me.

xTheWolf94x said:
So I'm not gay just because I got my dick sucked by a guy? Praise the Lord!!! Lol

I might be strange to you, but yes, that's is true. In terms of actually having sex, it's your affinity to the physical traits of the partner and the actions performed during sex that define your sexuality, not what gender you have sex with. If you have an affinity to having your dick sucked and a neutral reaction to his masculine features, then you will have a net positive experience.

I do not want a penis inside me.

I do not want my penis inside a man.

I myself am a man.

Therefor, I am straight.

I don't see why this is so fucking hard for some people. Isn't engaging in same-sex sex the DEFINITION of being gay? OP's logic says that I can go bowling every day and say "Yeah, well I'm not a bowler". If I get an erection by looking at another man, whoop-dee do. I can't control my penis. If I consciously want the same man to tie me to a tree, jerk me off, and call me Susan, I'm gay.

That being said, stop being so hung up in definitions and lables. They mean jack diddly.

SirAntagonist said:
...
Isn't engaging in same-sex sex the DEFINITION of being gay? ...

No.
The definition of being gay is engaging in ONLY same-sex sex.

Halite said:
No.
The definition of being gay is engaging in ONLY same-sex sex.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure that being gay means that you are a man who has a sexual attraction exclusively to other males. But I just spent this whole damn time saying that gender is irrelevant. We are attracted to TRAITS, not genders. People think they are gay or straight because they are attracted to the commonly shared traits of certain genders, but it's not the genders themselves.

It's like when people say "I don't like sci-fi books" and then they read a particular science fiction and like it. They don't like or dislike all sci-fi books, they just liked some element of that particular sci-fi book. It was a trait of the book, not the book's genre they liked.

SirAntagonist said:
I don't see why this is so fucking hard for some people. Isn't engaging in same-sex sex the DEFINITION of being gay? OP's logic says that I can go bowling every day and say "Yeah, well I'm not a bowler". If I get an erection by looking at another man, whoop-dee do. I can't control my penis. If I consciously want the same man to tie me to a tree, jerk me off, and call me Susan, I'm gay.

That being said, stop being so hung up in definitions and lables. They mean jack diddly.

The problem is that all current labels are exclusive of each other and missing a couple cases (someone who likes the female form and penis but can't stand the male body doesn't fit any label), combined with the fact that some people do some things for very specific reasons, and none of them need to be based on sexual attraction.

If I pay a man, who is not attracted towards other males, a million dollars to fuck a dude in the ass and he accepts to rake in the money, does that make him gay or a clever business man?

SirAntagonist said:
I do not want a penis inside me.

I do not want my penis inside a man.

I myself am a man.

Therefor, I am straight.

You could also be asexual, which is the problem as I already said, useless labels and imprecise definitions everywhere.
And definitions should be precise, otherwise studies, discussions or similar things on the matter will be much more difficult.

FatherOfGray said:
Really? Because I'm pretty sure that being gay means that you are a man who has a sexual attraction exclusively to other males. But I just spent this whole damn time saying that gender is irrelevant. We are attracted to TRAITS, not genders. People think they are gay or straight because they are attracted to the commonly shared traits of certain genders, but it's not the genders themselves.

It's like when people say "I don't like sci-fi books" and then they read a particular science fiction and like it. They don't like or dislike all sci-fi books, they just liked some element of that particular sci-fi book. It was a trait of the book, not the book's genre they liked.

People are defined by their actions.
A person who swears up and down that they're straight, but never has sex with women, and frequently has sex with men is not straight.
What we say, even to ourselves, is frequently a lie.
The only true gauge of a person is what they do, not what they think, or say.

Halite said:
People are defined by their actions.
A person who swears up and down that they're straight, but never has sex with women, and frequently has sex with men is not straight.
What we say, even to ourselves, is frequently a lie.
The only true gauge of a person is what they do, not what they think, or say.

So, by your definition, would you classify the man in NMNY's money example as gay, having done it for money instead of an attraction to the male gender?

Butterscotch said:
So, by your definition, would you classify the man in NMNY's money example as gay, despite not being attracted to males but having done it for money instead?

In my opinion, that would depend on whether or not he consistently enjoys the fact that he's screwing men(traits as OP mentioned), or the fact that he just does it as a job; as a form of work.

Butterscotch said:
So, by your definition, would you classify the man in NMNY's money example as gay, having done it for money instead of an attraction to the male gender?

Certainly not, because judging a person by a single act is also inaccurate.
Now, if the person in the example starts having sex with men for money on a regular basis, and doesn't have sex with women, regardless of monetary compensation, then yes I'd call that gay.

Why can't we all just accept that everyone has a different view than the person next to us? I don't label myself. Although people say I'm bi. I just shrug it off. I am what I am, and as log as I'm healthy and happy, I don't give a darn about what others think about me! Well here is the scientific stuff I know: Sexual attraction is determined mainly be the formitive years of your sexuality. These attractions can be defined as triggers which start the engine, so to speak. The body will (unknowingly to the host) assign actions or appearances to these triggers. Creating traits that we see as being gay, straight, or bi. But fret not these triggers can and will be reassigned throughout your life changing your feelings towards certain actions or appearances. Yay for science!

Killingsworth said:
-snip-

Labels are useful if they are properly defined and used, if I tell you to give me a knife you know exactly what type of cutting device I ask for, even though there are thousands of cutting devices and still hundreds of knives.
If we go to police investigations however, we now use labels like knives, daggers, stilettos, blades or others based on the cut of the victim, as those knives are created with a different purpose in mind and thus leave differing wounds (no matter if used properly or improperly).

If we had better labels than "blade", "different blade" and "this blade looks like neither" then those labels would actually be useful when discussing sexuality.

NotMeNotYou said:
Labels are useful if they are properly defined and used, if I tell you to give me a knife you know exactly what type of cutting device I ask for, even though there are thousands of cutting devices and still hundreds of knives.

If we had better labels than "blade", "different blade" and "this blade looks like neither" then those labels would actually be useful when discussing sexuality.

I agree with these statements, was just saying that I have a rather neutral viewpoint on the subject. Labels are part of human nature we want everything to be orderly, have a place, a definition, and a name. It is what we are and we can't change that, but that is a very good thing! We would never have advanced to this point in time without such traits. There should be more precise labels for sexuality, but I just don't particularly care if they do come up. If they do they do, if they don't they don't. :/

I like weiners on girly boys sometimes.

I like holes and poles.

I think its very subjective. If you think you are, you are.

The same could be said about folks who draw furry art, have accounts on furry sites and then 'claim' to not be furry. They're just kidding themselves. BUT, its their call whether to be labeled as such.

So, if you think you're gay, you're probably gay. At the very least, bi. But the only one whose opinion matters is yours.

Oooo I got turned on by a male furry character in a sexual situation. That's hardly a reason to consider oneself gay though. Questions I would ask: Do you seek this sort of thing out? Do other things (straight) turn you on too? Have you ever had gay sex IRL?

KodaForShort said:
I think its very subjective. If you think you are, you are.

The same could be said about folks who draw furry art, have accounts on furry sites and then 'claim' to not be furry. They're just kidding themselves. BUT, its their call whether to be labeled as such.

So, if you think you're gay, you're probably gay. At the very least, bi. But the only one whose opinion matters is yours.

Oooo I got turned on by a male furry character in a sexual situation. That's hardly a reason to consider oneself gay though. Questions I would ask: Do you seek this sort of thing out? Do other things (straight) turn you on too? Have you ever had gay sex IRL?

I don't think what you think is really sufficient, people lie to themselves all the time.
I mean, just look at all the anti-gay pastors, and politicians that get caught having sex with male prostitutes.
They continue to insist that they're straight, even when it comes out that it's been going on for years.

Halite said:
I don't think what you think is really sufficient, people lie to themselves all the time.
I mean, just look at all the anti-gay pastors, and politicians that get caught having sex with male prostitutes.
They continue to insist that they're straight, even when it comes out that it's been going on for years.

There's a difference between lying about yourself and knowing yourself though. I'm sure every one of those folks who lie knows inside the truth.

Or we could base the pictures on being pictures and not a sexual background....
In almost every case you cannot tell whether or not in the background of a pic where one male character is taking it from another male character, is thinking to himself "you know, I'm lying to myself right now, I really don't like this, I must be straight".
Because almost every situation that I see in a pic is easily labeled by using a tag-what-you-see basis, and not just some tag-what-the-character-is-thinking-about or something.
And being both a society and a site mostly based on sex, it only makes sense to categorize based on such...
Two males are having sex with each other --> gay
Two females are having sex with each other --> lesbians (welp, gay as well, but females)
One male one female (even pegging or other role reversal stuff) --> straight
Any other combo --> probably bi (I probably missed a few combinations or something)
Sure there are some ambiguously gray areas, such as transgenders and herms, but overall about 98.374% of the time there really isn't a reason for all this fuss...

KodaForShort said:
There's a difference between lying about yourself and knowing yourself though. I'm sure every one of those folks who lie knows inside the truth.

This. It's about what's actually going on in your brain, not what you tell people is going on in there. These things can easily, albeit expensively, be tested for. (We have machines that can read brain waves to see whether or not the brain has a positive or negative stimulus when a person is shown a certain image.) I think to avoid that complexity, it's best to go on an honesty system basis. It would be pretty easy to tell when someone is lying if you know them well enough.

Moon_Moon said:
*Insert Text Blob Here*

This isn't about tagging. On e621 we only tag actions, not orientations.

FatherOfGray said:
We are attracted to TRAITS, not genders....

It's like when people say "I don't like sci-fi books" and then they read a particular science fiction and like it. They don't like or dislike all sci-fi books, they just liked some element of that particular sci-fi book. It was a trait of the book, not the book's genre they liked.

I really like that analogy. It takes the concept of the Kinsey scale, but plugs it into a different pattern. So maybe the differing degrees of gay/straight and all the instances of "exceptions" to the traditional sexual labels are because the model is flawed. It's not actually about the gender of either party. It's about a combination of physical and other traits that are ultimately defining what or who a person is attracted to.

This is really not that hard of a sell when "gender" is actually just a hog's mess of stereotypes, traditions, cultural expectations, social roles and appearance (which often becomes like a gender-uniform) all rolled into two ready-made bundles that are an awkward fit for almost everybody. And when you consider all the forms of intersex, not even the minimum physical definitions fit everyone either. Basically we'd need better working gender definitions before we could reliably define sexuality based on gender. So it's better if sexuality is defined based on something more objective and easier to quantify, like the actual traits that are underscoring everything. I think it's a promising idea.

Now, what would you say about whether or not other types of attraction follow the same pattern? Would, for example, romantic attraction be simply the result of affinity, neutrality and/(or) disdain on a series of traits? I'd say yes. I mean, if one type of attraction works this way, why wouldn't the others also work this way? And whatever creates these preferences would be what "makes" your sexuality. Whether that's nature/nurture/experiences/aliens is of course a completely separate discussion. But I think this idea could work. It's great food for thought at least.

It's useful to pin down all these ideas into commonly understood and clearly defined terminology. This concept should be readily understood by e621's active members with all the website's tagging discussions and rules. For example, consistent terminology and rules greatly increase understanding and productivity. Likewise, they enable effective future discussion.

furrypickle said:
This is really not that hard of a sell when "gender" is actually just a hog's mess of stereotypes, traditions, cultural expectations, social roles and appearance (which often becomes like a gender-uniform) all rolled into two ready-made bundles that are an awkward fit for almost everybody.

This is good. The reasoning and terminology are consistent with what I briefly studied.

To elaborate on some keys points as best I can remember them... Stereotypes are useful tools in the perceptual process for quickly organizing enormous amounts of raw data into known categories. Discrimination occurs when inaccurate beliefs like stereotypes are applied to entire groups (and acted upon) without more critical evaluation, a self-reinforcing condition. A person's culture, or the totality of behaviors that person perceives from other members of the same groups, help form that person's identity. Cultural experiences help a person answer questions like "what am I" and "what does this behavior mean?"

Together, culture and the perceptual process mutually develop easy perceptual rules that generally fall apart under closer scrutiny, as this thread illuminates.

furrypickle said:
And when you consider all the forms of intersex, not even the minimum physical definitions fit everyone either. Basically we'd need better working gender definitions before we could reliably define sexuality based on gender. So it's better if sexuality is defined based on something more objective and easier to quantify, like the actual traits that are underscoring everything. I think it's a promising idea.

As for the topic at hand, I guess we're trying to resolve some basic issues with sexual attraction, gender identity, and both of their common stereotypes, particularly labels. To start, I have difficulty labeling myself because I don't subscribe to the "I'm gay for furry porn, but I wouldn't have sex with a man" ideology. Frankly, I don't believe that mentality is entirely sincere; rather, it's just a simple rationalization built upon convenient, socially and morally affirmative labels. That kind of delusional thinking keeps people feeling comfortable with themselves and their beliefs by eschewing internal debates on their gender and societal identities.

However, I am indifferent to the gender identity discussion. As far as I'm concerned, it's a discussion intended to comfort and resolve confusion in others with little direct personal benefit. Also, I'm rather apathetic about advocating social causes, and others will ultimately define and label me by my behavior anyways. And I further question the wisdom in defeating one stereotype only to undoubtedly have it replaced with another imperfect classification. Besides, defying classification is fun if you play your cards right. :)

I also have difficulty accepting that we can determine sexual attraction solely based on apparent physical traits. Predicted? Absolutely. But positively determined? No. The evaluation process just involves too many variables to positively confirm attraction, like tolerances for composite non-positive stimuli, thresholds for triggering strong chemical responses, and the plethora of unique, signature kinks. What if an observer incorrectly interprets an act and wrongfully ascribes the actor's behavior, resulting in the observer's positive sexual attraction? This certainly happens in both real life and with porn.

I don't think many would disagree with your argument that we like things based on traits.

From my perspective, furry art has the ability to do-away-with most of the male traits which are unattractive to me, while keeping those that are, and often times, adding in desirable female traits. It's a very selective and highly idealized picture; furries don't have to be ugly, overweight, sickly, or unkempt in the way people, at some point, have to be in the real world. They selectively get rid of negative traits while keeping the positive ones, in the same exact way you see in marketing and advertising. I think you'd probably find a lot of men are not averse to being penetrated by the ideal penis, they just can't get past the undesirable male traits that come along with this situation.

Judging sexuality based on whether or not you like giving or taking is a mistake. As you said, our romantic and sexual interests are just combinations of traits, and as it happens, most people generally possess traits contained within one of two groups, as much of the time they are mutually exclusive. So it makes sense that at some point you're going to end up with two main categories, in this case, genders.

I'm just going to link this.

This one time my gay friend offered to give me a blowjob, but I was like naaahhh

It's not gay if it's on the moon.

and

It's only gay when balls touch.

Some straight guys I know are gay with furries, but absolutely (even homophobically) straight with humans. I myself am gay, so it was slightly disappointing :P

My bet is that the subliminal stigma of homosexuality most of us are taught by peers doesn't hold up when it's furry; most insults about sexual orientation are about humans.

Patch said:
It's not gay if it's on the moon.

If my comic senses are correct, I thought it was only gay if you kiss...

TheTundraTerror said:
I'm just going to link this.

Is there no end to your random, and yet relevant links?

JOHN MADDEN