The problem here is that you’re looking for a creative solution to the wrong problem. The issue isn’t a lack of words for “people attracted to X” – a construction which is still exclusionary because it presumes both a gender binary and monosexuality – but more the generalizations themselves. Even if you cling to the binary-monosexual construction, there’s nothing that can accurately be asserted as true of all people who are attracted to men or women beyond the tautological self-definition. “Gynephiles love cheerleaders” type sentiments are just not good writing. It’s not a good assertion. It’s lazy, sloppy hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole and who needs that?
We don’t need new words, we need to elevate and become more creative with our thinking. We need to break away from generalizations. We need to stop trying to construct new boxes because the old boxes are broken. Those boxes aren’t broken just because we’re more aware, they’re broken because certain concepts shouldn’t be so hemmed in, linguistically, to begin with.
You can make the same statement about all kinds of groups that we still find it useful to have words for. There’s nothing true of all women except that they are women, and so on.
It seems perfectly possible to acknowledge all this and still be interested in, say, the prevailing opinion of people-attracted-to-men on some matter.
This is exactly what is wrong with america. The liberal termites. The P.C mob and their extreme fear of “insulting” someone, on the grounds that everybody is so “sensitive” and “easily-offended”
. This nonsense has to stop, here is what you call this and what you call that:
man like man = homo (as in homosexual, you know the **Medical **term)
woman like woman = lesbian or homo
man like woman = normal, need not to define this is the assumed preference
woman like man = se above
case closed, please close this horrible, destructive thread,america.
The point is to be able to refer to sets composed of attracted-to-women (heterosexual men+homosexual women) versus attracted-to-men (heterosexual women+homosexual men). Presumably bisexuals of both genders are included in both sets. So we want terms for two large and partly-overlapping sets, each of varying gender. We already know how to talk about the four smaller gender-based sets you list.
I’ll leave it to others to deal with your idea of “normal.” :rolleyes:
It seems odd to try to force a new term for use in the context provided. Instead of “________s” go wild for Angelinia Jolie," why not say, “Angelina Jolie has a left a lot of people with mouths open and tongues wagging.” gender neutral, sexual orientation ambiguous. The focuz is on the object of attraction instead of the myriad people attracted to the object.
All the time. It’s the standard honorific used for addressing women in writing in any professional office where I have worked (unless, of course, she’s a Dr.).
*Dear Ms. Lastname:
Blah Blah Blah*
That way, you don’t have to know their marriage status to write them an email.
As an example of how the terms would be useful: Way back when X-Men United was in theaters, we were discussing Wolverine’s magic indestructible pants, that stayed on him even while he was getting disintegrated. I commented that it seemed unfair, that we straight men and lesbians got to see Rebbecca Romjin naked, and so straight women and gay men ought to be able to get to see Hugh Jackman naked. See how awkward that was? Saying “we men” and “women” would have flowed much smoother, but of course, some women did get to see what they wanted, and some men were disappointed. Now, obviously, not all gynephiles find Rebbecca Romjin attractive, and not all androphiles find Hugh Jackman attractive, but it’s a large enough proportion in both cases to be meaningful.
Every single day, several times a day. I am married, but didn’t change my last name. All the judges know I am married, because I married another local attorney. We were married by one of the judges. After we got married, most of the judges asked me if I was going to change my name. I said no. Every single day at work I am called Ms. _______. This includes all my colleagues, all my clients, and all the judges (including the new wave “activist judges” and the ones that are older than dirt and wouldn’t know PC if it fell out of the sky and hit them in the face). :rolleyes:
But both imply a high level of promiscuity. You could be down with the poontang but only have one female partner. Wouldn’t a vagibond wander from snatch to snatch? And Penisseurs would always go on and on about the shape and bouquet of a given penis, lol.
