Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

  • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Pansexual, polysexual, and omnisexual are all microlabels and are all subsets of bisexual. You don’t need more labels than gay, straight, and bi.

    Edit: I forgot about asexuals. But I specifically only care about bi subsets. They’re dumb, and you only need bi

    • Tiefling IRL@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Polysexual is very different than bisexual. You can be het-poly or homo-poly.

      Also, most of the nuanced micro-labels are for the community. If they don’t apply to you, don’t use them.

      • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Polyamory isn’t a sexuality. It’s a dating preference. Most of these labels do apply to me, and I think they’re redundant.

    • pizza-bagel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      And asexual

      But I agree. The bi community already collectively decided we are trans and nonbinary inclusive. We don’t need to further separate it out.

    • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      As a pansexual I feel that Bi and Pan have enough differences to both be justified while the others are micro labels (not invalid, just less useful as labels).

      But I recognize I’m drawing that line very conveniently for myself.

    • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Here’s an unpopular opinion: you don’t need any labels at all. You love who you live, you fuck who you fuck, you can advertise what you’re looking for if you want to but all this identity business obscures the reality that humans are far more diverse and interesting than the boxes we build for ourselves.

      Most people who call themselves straight would fuck someone from their own gender if there weren’t cultural expectations against it hammered into them from and early age. Most people who call themselves gay would wander if they found someone they connected with. Very few of us rest at one end of any spectrum or matrix. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, and far more mobile than we might realize.

    • cosmicsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Upvoted, but I have a slight disagreement. I think bisexual should actually be a label under pansexual. Bisexual doesn’t necessarily account for anyone outside the gender binary.

    • doggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If we’re splitting hairs, bi should be a sunset of pan.

      Also, there is some need for a fourth “none of the above” label…

    • Treefox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. All the little bitty addages don’t make sense. You can be bi and still have preferences. Just keep it simple gosh dangit.

      • June@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think there’s value for folks in the community to have the hyper-specific labels. I’m saying this as a bi person who agrees that pan, Omni, etc are sub categories of bi.

      • ougi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is that really what you thought, or just an attempt at humor? Be honest ;)

    • gamermanh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not understanding what words mean isn’t an unpopular opinion, you’re just wrong

      Not about the first bit, that’s arguable

      You definitely DO need more labels than straight, gay, and bi. For example: asexual or sapiosexual, those don’t fit into any of the 3 you listed

        • SpyingEnvelope@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Can’t agree more. The microlabels are too much at this point. You do not need mix sexual orientation, which is the sex we are naturally attracted to, with having preferences, which are the qualities we find attractive in a person or a relationship. The two are completely separate.