Why not "orthosexual?"

Cheezy the Wiz

Socialist In A Hurry
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
25,238
Location
Freedonia
Random thought. So "straight" people, aka "normal" in the mindset of people when the term was invented, are referred to as "heterosexual." The opposite of straight people, those who are attracted to the same sex, are homosexual. But this makes no sense. Hetero- is the prefix that denotes deviance from the norm, as in heterodox. So shouldn't homosexuals be heterosexual, and those who are attracted to the opposite sex be orthosexual, as in orthodox? Again, in the minds of the people who invented these terms.

I'm aware of the tainted nature of the terms. My question is meant to be a "why didn't it happen this way?" question.
 
Heterogenous.

edit: that might need a little clarification, but i'm not sure how to phrase it: hetero means something different than something. it's not antinormal or nontraditional or nonorthodox or something. has nothing to do with origin or deviance, rather that a difference actually exists :)
 
wiki says heterosexual means "The word is etymologically formed by adding the combining form of Greek έτερος heteros (meaning "different" or "opposite") as a prefix to "sexuality"."

Nothing about deviance from a norm.
 
Yeah, I was going to mention that deviance from the norm probably wasn't the reason behind the terms, and is most likely some later baggage that got added.
 
That is hardly much better, if at all. Ortho comes from the Greek orthos which means straight, right, upright.
 
Can we do away with the terms homosexual and heterosexual altogether and everybody instead identifies with where they are on the Kinsey Scale?


Everything is better in scale form...

Or we could, you know, not really care about sexual identity in particular and just go with it.

Guy 1: Hey guy, do you like guys?
Guy 2: Yes/no/existential crisis/will society accept me now

or

Guy 1: Hey guy, do you like me?
Guy 2: No.
 
Come to that, why the dichotomy straight and bent?

Or straight and hip(?), for another context?
 
Calling homosexuals 'heterosexual' as in 'deviating in sexuality' is problematic, because transgenders, pedofiles etc. are deviating from the norm too and would thus be heterosexuals too. Which means you'd need another word.
 
I always lose them on the second and...

It's true it doesn't really matter who loves who, and the Kinsey Scale has it's faults (not surprising given it is over 50 years old) largest being it only measures between "homosexual" and "heterosexual" and only in a very one dimensional sense (ie sexual attraction).

However, given that as a species we tend to have a fetish for labels and categorisation, I was just making the point, I guess, that it'd be far better to have a sliding scale of sexuality rather than dichotomous positions (whatever we choose to call them) that come with all the baggage of expected behaviours, and suchlike
 
Guy 1: Hey guy, do you like me?
Guy 2: No.

Then you'll have some people insisting that Guy 2 is actually saying: "Yes, I'm a flaming homosexual who shags anything with an arsehole."
 
Then you'll have some people insisting that Guy 2 is actually saying: "Yes, I'm a flaming homosexual who shags anything with an arsehole."

lol

well yeah i guess but sexuality as a concept is relatively modern. i don't see how it can't be deconstructed again
 
Deviantskedasticity
 
7865298def4b41726466e534b6de002f58e1c7cf_m.gif
 
That, I find, is not the easiest word to say. And what's it mean? Orthosexual?
 
Back
Top Bottom