• jarfil@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    From a spectrum point of view, I suspect that something like 100% might be Q, as in everyone having their own combination of places on multiple orthogonal axes of attraction and identity… and that “pure” sexualities are just in denial of some part of themselves.

    Paradoxically, it would mean that lacking a full description of someone’s attraction and identity pattern, the closest “sexually” useful description in the sense of matchmaking, would be either that of their genitals, or none at all, with there being better matchmaking predictors that are not sexual.

    The rest of labels, would be more of an approximation of one’s tolerance and openness, rather than actual descriptions.

    I think we can see some of that in the proliferation of orientation and identity “pride flags”, which seem to have exploded in number, and represent more of a partial personal pattern rather than that of an actual group. It’s still a nice thing to see people freely display their assumed identities, but in the long run I’d expect some systematization and have them classified according to the set of positions on which axes each one represents.

    Maybe in some future version of Unicode, there could be a similar encoding to the one used for country flags, which are made of country code letter markers, or the ones for groups of people like 👩‍👩‍👧‍👦 or 👨🏿‍🤝‍👨🏼, but for sexual pride flags.