Beyond Gay and Straight: New Paper Says Sexual Orientation Is Much More Complicated

All of us have "multiple sexual orientations ... across a variety of different dimensions."


Emmanuele Contini/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Have you ever looked at "MILF" photos? Lusted after someone with "dad bod?" Congratulations, you might be a mesophiliac!

"Mesophilia"—a sexual attraction to middle-aged adults—is one of dozens of potential sexual-orientations explored in a new paper from forensic psychologist Michael Seto, an associate professor at the University of Toronto and director of forensic rehabilitation research at the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group.

Seto's research has long focused on sexuality, especially the psychology of sex offenders and of pedophiles. In his latest paper, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Seto returns to and expands upon "the idea that pedophilia, a sexual interest in prepubescent children, can be considered a sexual orientation for age, in conjunction with the much more widely acknowledged and discussed sexual orientation for gender."

The gendered direction of attraction is usually what we mean when we talk about sexual orientation: are you gay? straight? bisexual? But a burgeoning idea among sex researchers and psychologists is that this defines things too narrowly. As Jesse Singal explains at New York mag, "given the current scientific understanding of what sexual orientation is — that it is a deep-seated attraction toward certain sorts of people that first manifests itself around puberty, tends to be stable across the lifespan, and can't be altered by any intentional means — there's compelling reason to think gender is just one piece of a bigger, more complex puzzle."

Even the gender dimension is more complex than most realize, writes Seto, with some people "attracted to gynandromorphs, that is… individuals with physical features of both sexes … other individuals who are attracted specifically to transgender people, and those who would describe themselves as more pansexual with regard to gender, for example, being attracted to both cis- and trans-gender women or men."

Seto/Archives of Sexual Behavior

According to Seto—who defines sexual orientation as "essential aspects of one's sexuality that organize sexual attention, sexual response, and sexual behavior"—all of us have "multiple sexual orientations, rather than a single sexual orientation, across a variety of different dimensions."

In his paper, Seto looks at seven chronophilias—orientations where sexual attraction hinges on age—and various paraphilias, the term given to sexual desires such as sadism, masochism, and exhibitionism. After gender, the second most-studied dimension for sexual attraction has been age.

The vast majority of people are teleiophilic—that is, preferring sexually mature but pre-middle-age adults.

For men, data indicates that around one percent are pedophilic (attracted to prepubescent children), notes Seto, while nepiophilia (attraction to infants and toddlers) is much more rare and hebephilia (attraction to children around ages 11-14) and ephebophilia (attraction to adolescents) both more common. Good estimates are hard to come by, however, as "little is known about noncriminal variations in age interests" and most of the research that does exist is exclusive to men.

Seto/Archives of Sexual Behavior

Sexual orientations are thought to be innate—i.e., a person can't choose to stop getting turned-on by feet or dominance or dad-bod anymore than they can choose to stop sexually reacting as they do to the opposite or same sex. This tends to alarm folks who think that calling something natural is to condone anything it inspires. But psychopathy and sociopathy are innate, or natural, too. The born-this-way element of sexual orientation doesn't mean that acting on an orientation is OK when it conflicts with other moral or social norms we've nurtured.

Likewise, sexual orientations are psychologically neutral, notes Seto—that is, having an unusual orientation isn't, in itself, enough to raise mental-health concerns. But any particular sexual orientation might rise to the level of disorder if it causes someone severe distress or inhibits normal sexual functioning.

Aside from the gender and age dimensions, other points of variation for sexual orientation include self/other ("individuals' sexual interests can be directed outward toward others, or inward toward an imagined self," such as when a man is turned on by imagining himself as a woman), living/non-living (non-living targets might literally mean attraction to the dead, attraction to specific body parts on a living human, or attraction to inanimate objects), human/other species, dominance/submission, sadism/masochism, and consent/non-consent.

"Unlike sexual orientation for gender, where most people are exclusively heterosexual, with decreasing numbers of individuals showing some same-sex interest from predominantly heterosexual to exclusively homosexual, we do not expect sharp differentiations for age categories where individuals show a sexual response to only one category," writes Seto. "In other words, though most people are teleiophilic, this does not mean they show no interest in sexually mature adolescents or middle-aged adults." Similarly, someone showing a sexual orientation toward submission, voyeurism, or any other paraphilia does not mean they won't get aroused without this element.

NEXT: Rocky Earth-Sized Planet Found Circling Nearest Star

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m having a case of Vuja De, the strange feeling that none of this has ever happened before.

    1. +1 George Carlin

    2. jamais vu

      Joseph Heller explored the concept nicely in Catch-22.

  2. “Mesophilia”?a sexual attraction to middle-aged adults?is one of dozens of potential sexual-orientations

    Do we really call ‘tastes’ an orientation?



    1. YES!

      Now give me more money to study these orientations.

      1. It suggests to me that if we call all these various predilections as “orientations”, and you can’t discriminate against someone based on “orientation” then I can see a whole lot of “whoah, wait, that’s not what we meant!” coming down the pike.

        1. the sjw’s are already going down that rabbit hole. I mean, if you were born someway and can’t discriminate….

          didn’t vox have an article like that? … 😐

          1. mmmmm rabbit holes…

          2. SJWs make some exceptions. People they dislike are not to be protected.

        2. Well, you *SHOULDN’T* discriminate against someone based on their orientation, it is something they have very little control over.

          That said, just because something turns you on doesn’t mean you have to engage in it so we should still discriminate (up to and including with criminal sanctions) based on actions and the fact that a given act is in line with your sexual orientation doesn’t excuse it.

          If you are a pedophile who has never touched a child inappropriately society should not hold it against you but the minute you do you should still be punished for your act because your orientation does not excuse it.

          1. If you are a pedophile who has never touched a child inappropriately society should not hold it against you

            They shouldn’t engage state sanctioned violence against you, but they shouldn’t let you teach kindergarten either.

          2. Absolutely, a sexual orientation does not equal a free pass.

            Even so, there is considerable evidence that sex is not inherently harmful to children.

            Yes, there is venereal disease, difference in size, etc. – but these are separate and can be mitigated. The chief issue seems to be the multi-billion dollar Child Abuse Industry: the?rapists and authority figures who cause harm to children. Rind et al (1998), which is for practical purposes the only decent study on the subject (replicated by other researchers in 2005) found that there was little to no harm in cases where the authorities never discovered an adult-child relationship, compared to significant harm when the authorities did find out. That certainly should raise questions about the source of harm. It is also curious that despite the presumption that adult-child sex is inherently harmful, there has never been a serious proposal as to what the mechanism of harm may be. Why is a touch by a doctor beneficial, a touch by a same-age friend neutral, but a touch by an older friend satanic in its harm? No one has provided a serious explanation. (I’m not counting Dr. Reisman’s erototoxin nuttery.)

            Meanwhile, most in the Kind community adhere to the simple rule, “Don’t take children swimming in polluted waters.” Just because it isn’t the sexual relationship that does harm does not mean that a responsible adult would expose a child to the dangers posed by the?rapists and law enforcement.

        3. Nah, that never happens.

    2. I mean, yeah, exactly. I’m not convinced that Seto et al’s categorizing (and, like, the theory behind it) makes any sense. But I think it’s kind of an interesting idea to entertain, and tried to just present it without too much editorializing

      1. I don’t feel strongly about it, it just seems the authors may be getting ahead of themselves a bit.

        1. Hey, if the authors are turned on by getting ahead of themselves a bit, who are you to judge?

          1. I judged this comment and found it funny. Sorry for imposing my norms on you?

      2. The born-this-way element of sexual orientation doesn’t mean that acting on an orientation is OK when it conflicts with other moral or social norms we’ve nurtured.

        This right here is a very loaded statement — you DO see where this can lead, no?

        *SLD concerning consent/self-ownership.

        1. NAMBLA?

          Of course acting on your innate sexual orientation is no more acceptable than acting on your innate psychopathy that drives you to torture people to death (for example) if it involves non-consensual activities.

          1. Where does consent begin? Can it be determined scientifically what age? I know I don’t have an answer and I have seen way too many people punished by government for a small age difference and that doesn’t seem right … but this “born that way” argument could be used to justify pedophillia? And no, I cannot just write-off “slippery-slope” arguments as being a fallacy.

            I also think that bestiality could be called animal cruelty/abuse but who draws the line?

            I guess I don’t really expect people to have a coherent justification — they want what they want, but when folks start running to have the government point guns at dissenters, it would be nice.

            My own sex life I take great interest in — y’all’s — not so much.

            1. DWB, the age of consent is one of those things that is based on societal mores. Different cultures will have different ages of consent, within some range of teenage years. Whatever the culture decides is then codified into law. I can’t think of a better way on deciding this. I don’t think science would help.
              As for animals, they can’t give consent from a legal point of view, so I agree it is animal abuse.

              1. Sex with anyone under the age of 11 is always a criminal act.
                Sex with anyone between 11 and 15 and more than 4 years younger than you is a criminal act
                Sex with anyone between the ages of 15 and 19 and more than 4 years younger than you can result in criminal charges but proving that the younger person in this case was mature enough to consent is an acceptable defense

                1. Sex with anyone under the age of 11 is always a criminal act.

                  So, two 10 yr. olds fool around, whom do we charge*? How about a 12 or 13 yr. old and an 11 yr. old?

                  I think the idea of a minimal positive Y-intercept in the formula is a good one. If someone can be too young to consent then, conversely, they can be too young to know they’re committing a crime/doing something wrong.

                  * The nearest male, obviously, but I mean in respect to the anyone under the age of 11 engaged in sex…

              2. I generally agree with you.

              3. As for animals, they can’t give consent from a legal point of view, so I agree it is animal abuse.

                You know when an animal consents… It doesn’t turn around and chew your genitals off.

                1. What if that’s your thing?

            2. Where does consent begin? Can it be determined scientifically what age?

              How old is 15 really?

              A visionary that man.

            3. Yeah, I don’t know.

              I honestly have a hard time arguing that anyone older than 10 or so is really incapable of giving consent. But I also think that in almost every case, an adult having sex with a 10 year old is a disgusting and immoral act.

              It’s a tough one to decide purely on principle. Any age based line you draw is going to be arbitrary to some extent.

            4. I think it worth noting that the idea of an age of consent was originally created to protect children from government, not from sexual partners. The age of consent was created in an era when all fornication (all sex outside of marriage) could be punished harshly by law, and the age of consent was created so that a judge could not punish a child under that age. In modern parlance we might call it the age of responsibility. This explains why it was historically so low – at one time it was only 7 in Delaware – which means that in Delaware they reckoned a 7 year old had the mental capacity to be held criminally responsible for their sexual behavior.

              This only changed in the late 1800s, starting with the “white slavery” panic in England, which was actually an anti-prostitution crusade. Middle-aged, middle-class ladies were very concerned that their husbands preferred young prositutes to themselves, and thus established some trade barriers. It spread from there – but of course they would not get far with the real reason, so they pretended they were “protecting” their rivals.

          2. What about supporting non-rights-violating outlets for pedophiles, such as artificially generated child pornography images or sex dolls? Would such measures increase or decrease child abuse? Is it comparable to availability of porn and rape rates?

            If pedophilia really occurs at a rate of 1%, which is millions of people, may be we should start discussing how to somehow incorporate these people into society rather than forcing them into the shadows.

            1. As long as no real children are involved, I do not care.

              I hope that these are good outlets and allow those with this predilection to avoid hurting children/prison, I just do not know if it is true (though I am sure they would help some.)

              1. There was an article last year in some mag about a guy that was a pedophile that was horrified at the idea of hurting a child and that never acted on his urges. The article talked about how he could not even talk to a therapist because he would be reported. These people are so fucked. I can’t imagine dealing with a burden like that.

                1. There have been several articles like that. Yes, it’s true – the traditional advice is not to speak about it to anyone – not parents, not a spouse, no one – because historically we have found that very few can be trusted, and of course there is no way to determine who ahead of time. Almost all community actions are online, using various methods for security.

                  Naturally this leads to quite a few suicides in the community.

                  But of course, different people respond to adversity in different ways. Some even take action to oppose adversity.

            2. I should clarify that I of course don’t mean we should condone any sexual behavior towards children, but that we should acknowledge that pedophiles are cursed with somerhing they didn’t choose and provide them treatment or outlet options without automatically condemning them as evil if they didn’t act on their impulses.

            3. I don’t have a problem with that. Banning simulated pedophilia is just punishing Thoughtcrime.

              And, for the most part, pedophilia does seem to be an innate thing. I don’t think there are lots of latent pedophiles out there who just need some simulated kiddie porn to get them started as molesters.

      3. But I think it’s kind of an interesting idea to entertain

        If I may ask, why?

        It’s not novel.

        1. Its mesophilia, or Trump.

          Suck it, frilly pink thing.

      4. I think it’s interesting. What makes this different is that cultures have not oppressed anyone for age-based sexual preference, other than pedophilia. So politically, this is less interesting than gender-based sexual orientation. Of course, one could argue that culture frowns upon certain age combinations, but such prejudices have not been codified into law (since men in power love young women).

      5. Once you start calling preferences (whether for the same sex, either sex, etc.) “orientations”, I don’t see a logical stopping place. He prefers/is oriented toward men. He’s prefers/is oriented toward burly hairy men. That guy prefers/is oriented toward middle-aged women. Etc. ad infinitum.

        The difficulty comes when you start treating “orientations” as categories that have legal consequences. If he is entitled to preferential treatment because of his orientation, why aren’t I?

    3. Yeah and notice that list of “dozens” would include pedophilia also.

      “Orientation” is a meaningless euphemistic word anyway. It’s meant solely to avoid describing homosexuality with a negative connotation. It’s neither good nor bad because it’s natural, not a matter of choice. You know, like cancer.

      1. I took it to mean the way it’s usually used in modern, cultural context: Gay or straight. I’m perfectly happy recognizing popularized terms that could be broadly applied, but are generally understood to mean something more specific. But when you start getting laws which actually use those terms, then I guess when I get worried about that it makes me Hitler. As FOE correctly notes below.

    4. Episiarch was born a chubby chaser. It’s not a lifestyle choice, Hitler.

        1. He’s making gobs of money working for some political campaign. He told me not to think of it as him “selling out” so much as parting suckers from their money.

          1. Good for him. And by the way, now we have an explanation as to why the DNC’s emails got hacked. Nice job, Episiarch. Your IT skills preceed you.

            Russians my ass.

            1. Epi may not be Russian himself, but about half of his STDs are.

          2. He’s making gobs of money working for some political campaign.

            Which can only mean either Trump of Hillary.

            Well, …. i wanted to say “more power to him”…. but that’s not quite right at all. Let’s say, “whatever pays the bills”. Hopefully he gets something shiny out of it.

            1. Did you miss the “gobs of money” part?

          3. Oh, I thought he was out there trying to sell his cheaper version of the EpiPen. Instead of epinephrine, it has…..

            1. Cocaine, probably.

    5. I thought Mesophilia was that thing lawyers advertise you can get money for on late night TV?

      1. Mesothelioma. Thank you for playing.

      2. +1 American gigolo

  3. If I was a chick, I’d totally be a lesbian. Best lesbian ever.

    1. I’d play with my boobs all day. Much like I do now.

      1. I would scissor everything in sight.

        1. While eating clams ?

  4. There’s no ‘Crusty Bump’ on the graph. What gives?

    1. There is a ‘Crusty Bump’ in my pants that I can give you.

        1. It was strange that you wanted to know who was on the other end of the glory hole, but since that’s now considered a subset of gloryholiphilia, that’s okay.

          1. Hmmm…Glory holes with windows…

            1. GloryVoyeurHoleIsmphillia

            2. That’s not a glory hole with a window. That’s two glory holes.

    2. Um, the chart includes both gerontophilia AND frotteurism, so he’s at least partially covered, figuratively speaking.

      1. With a dash of “Mesophilia”

  5. Sexual orientations are thought to be innate

    Do you all not have staff meetings where you discuss upcoming stories?

    1. I was wondering if anyone else caught that. Seriously, one article all about how that position is a straw-man only for the next one to argue exactly that, as if its common unquestioned fact.

      1. Cue all the people insisting that Reason isn’t a monolith.

      2. Maybe ENB and Shackford are having an argument about it?

        1. Either way Shackford is wrong. The argument is not a strawman if ENB is actually making it.

    2. I’m pretty sure they don’t when it comes to the blog. Because it’s a blog.

      And this story is really just presenting something that some other people said.

      1. Well, yeah, but it still looks disconnected and schizophrenic.

  6. Can we get crusty and SF to name all the fetishes people are into?

    1. Ain’t nobody got time for that.

      1. (Watch this shit)

        You’re just chicken.

        1. There is one prominent coulrophiliac in the commentariat, but he’s litigious.

          1. Only one?

            1. Two, buy only one that still posts. And technically the other one is strictly a dacrocoulrophiliac.


  7. hebephilia

    Only slightly-better known than dagophilia, spicophilia, gringophilia, honkyphilia, kraoutophilia, mickophilia, nipophilia, and suchlike.

  8. I get my jollies this one weird way and it’s totally original and that makes me totally special while the rest of you are boring as fuck.

    Also, I was totally into mohawks in the 80’s and was the first one to wear parachute pants in my town. SO SPECIAL.

  9. On a scale of 1 to 5, how confident are we that Tonio is under that pig-gimp mask?

    1. I was going to ask our gay fans what and why that would be a thing, but I’m glad you waded in first.

      1. Nobody can really explain freaky disgusting fetishes like that, Paul. We just have to get used to the idea that some people are attracted to dude with disgusting beards.

        1. The beard is only disgusting if it has soup in it. Fact.

          1. Well, it depends on the soup.

            1. Clam Chowder *shudders*

          2. My beard memory. I was watching Hacksaw Jim Duggan as a child, and he went to pin the poor squash he was wrestling against, when you could clearly see an enormous amount of snot had somehow been discharged into his beard.

            Beards, to this day, make me gag. Because of Hacksaw Jim Duggan, not the snot.

            1. The match was a squash. The guy was jobber.

              /Pro Wrestling Pedant

          3. No self-respecting restaurant or supermarket would allow a filthy beardo into their establishment.

    2. I thought it was Ringo Starr and Sgt. Snorkel’s dog from Beetle Bailey. What do I know.

      1. What we do know….you’re old.

  10. It’s almost like sex feels good and how you partake in it is just a preference that is sometimes immutable, but often fluid, shifting and based on availability. Maybe, just maybe, it’s importance shouldn’t be elevated above my dislike of bananas and tequila or my fondness for red meat and whiskey, because no one cares, nor should they.

    1. You don’t like bananas!!!!11!!1!!1

      1. I visited Indonesia as a child. There were bananas everywhere, in the market, on trees, in my relatives houses even! Just everywhere objectifying me with their banana gaze. Now I need a safe space when I see the color yellow. *cries

    2. That’s nonsense. How are we supposed to judge people if they don’t slot themselves into discrete little categories?

      1. I have three personality categories:


        Sexual categories are more binary:


        but the first is a very small subset of the population with the latter is a big, big slice of the pie called humanity.

      2. I’m sure any minute now someone will find some superstition so terrible we should murder over it and some tiny subsection of humanity so aggrieved we should elevate to a god-pedestal. You know, instead of just not being a dick to everyone, because that’s way harder.

    3. Maybe, just maybe, it’s importance shouldn’t be elevated

      I do find the current obsession with sex/gender/orientation/preference to be remarkably immature and juvenile, myself.

    4. It’s almost like sex feels good…

      Almost, but not quite, in my experience. A bit like attending to an urge to watch paint dry.

      1. Aces are like the vegans of sex. Thanks for sharing.

  11. This is great news for those of us who demand greater granularity in their pigeonholing of people.

    1. We need a scientific term for left-wing feminist broads who pretend to be libertarian, despise men, and yet are obsessed with sex way above and beyond the level of a normal woman.

      1. Look, i’m sorry ENB took out that restraining order on you, Trisomic Downsident.

        1. I thought he was describing Virginia Postrel.

        2. I wouldn’t want want to be anywhere within 500 yards of her under any circumstances.

          Especially since I’m still not entirely convinced that she doesn’t have a dick.

      2. Hall and Oates wrote that song already, Slow Sick Miscreant.

  12. I just can’t really say that I understand why humans spend so much time and work themselves into so much of a lather about what other people do with their genitals. Sometimes I wonder if aliens already observe us and would contact us if we weren’t so damned stupid and petty as a species.

    You mean those humans actually cause each other grief, hardship, and suffering over the small fleshy bits they rub together to procreate? They’re willing to commit genocide towards people who use those bits in ways that please them but aren’t approved by cultural taboos? They spend much of their time talking and thinking about them? Fuck that. I’m not going to that backwards-ass planet.

    Then I realize that maybe abducting a few of our wild-eyed farmers and anally probing them is really for them just a backwoods “sport” like cow-tipping allegedly is for said farmers.

  13. When it comes to straight / gay / bi….. hey, a hole is a hole, right?

    And it’s not gay if the balls don’t touch

  14. Have you ever looked at “MILF” photos?


    Lusted after someone with “dad bod?”



    Thanks, ENB!

    1. The first time anyone has ever had reason to congratulate Crusty. What a day!

  15. All of us have “multiple sexual orientations … across a variety of different dimensions.”


    (*yes, i know she said ‘orientations’ and not ‘gender’, please. don’t marginalize my Discosexuality)

    Here’s the thing with the “Appeal to Complexity” re: sexuality = it begs the “so what?”-retort

    It seems a very-common argument to try and erase any practical distinctions by ‘insisting complexity *exists*’

    well, sure. Of course there’s no perfect dichotomy, and there are spectrums, and exceptions to those spectrums, and every bizarre fetish under the sun, et cetera…. Everything is “more complex” than we typically describe them. And not only that…. they change! a person might have 6 different orientations in the course of a single day.

    But we describe thing in simpler terms because its simply more practical, and is ‘good enough’ for 99% of the known-universe in which this shit actually matters.

    IOW, its more useful to be “mostly right” most of the time. Categories like “Gay & Straight” are good enough to describe most human behavior. The stuff on the margins of the bell curve are nice and all, but is about as important as the apocryphal Gerbil up Richard Gere’s butt.

    1. a person might have 6 different orientations in the course of a single day

      Only six? I get at least six before 9am.

      1. And then dinner at Milliway’s?

      2. Only six? I get at least six before 9am.

        Thanks Japan (No tentacles, but still probably NSFW)!

    2. i know she said ‘orientations’ and not ‘gender’

      Is there a difference? Look at the four headlined “gender” categories – lesbian, bi, gay, transsexual. Aren’t at least three of those your preference in sexual partners, thus, your “orientation”.

      And as you go deeper into the QWERTYUIOP catalog, I don’t think that really changes.

      Since sex means gender now (in the anti-discrimination regs, anyway), and many gender categories are based on your preference/orientation, I think we may be almost to the point where your sex is defined by who would like to have sex with. IF sex = gender=orientation=preference, then doesn’t sex=preference now?

      1. Is there a difference?

        I don’t know what the politically-correct attitude is at the moment, but i do think there’s a difference between “gender” and “orientation”.

        One is “what you are“, the other is “what you want to bone (*or be boned by)

        That doesn’t mean the two aren’t being equally muddied in similar ways – just that they are pretty clearly different things.

      2. Look at the four headlined “gender” categories – lesbian, bi, gay, transsexual.

        Huh? Only one of those is even remotely a gender category (I guess lesbian and sometimes gay are gender specific, but are really just extra characteristics on top of the normal binary gender categories.).

        1. Lesbian is gender specific, the others aren’t.

          1. Of course, I could be making the mistake that words actually mean things.

          2. That’s what I thought, but people keep saying “gays and lesbians” as if “gays” doesn’t contain both.

      3. In place of the outdated and absurd LGBTQIAPPA+ or whatever it us at the moment, Outright Libertarians is using, and recommends others use, GSM (Gender & Sexual Minorities). Not only is it inclusive of everybody without having to adapt to changing vocabulary but it encompasses marginalized behaviors like sex workers and their clients, BDSM and poly family structures that intersect with heterosexuality.

  16. “different dimensions”


    1. Bigger when it’s inside?

  17. ENB’s conspicuous lack of alt-text on the art makes me question her motives for working here.

    1. “So I told the guy I wanted him to make me a Lena Dunham mask.”

      1. Or, even better:

        “I’ll tell everyone that it’s Tonio under this mask.”

        1. Tonio’s really taking a pounding in this comments section.

          1. That’s how he likes it, though.

            1. I thought he liked taking it on the chin.

      2. Who do you want to terrorize?

  18. The researchers left off a category at the far right end (maybe) of the chart: necrophilia.

  19. When I was a teenager, I was really into teenage chicks, although if an appealing woman from another age group had offered to throw some my way, I would have obliged. Now that I’m middle-aged, I’m into milfs.

    I sure am complex and ever-changing.

  20. This really just looks like a dilution of “orientation” like “gender”.

  21. Way too limiting!

    Just cause I want to fuck dogs of a very specific variety doesn’t mean I’d ever indulge in pig or camel (dependent on type). The ‘Zoophilia’ (and others) need to be further broken down by individual species categories! Like if one’s sexual orientation is long haired blondes, that wouldn’t include red heads or short haired blonds, but we wouldn’t know that with the one size fits all categories they are ramming down our throats.

    Get your shit together Seto et al. or I’m dubbing this bad science.

  22. “The born-this-way element of sexual orientation doesn’t mean that acting on an orientation is OK when it conflicts with other moral or social norms we’ve nurtured.”

    Wasn’t Born-this-Way pretty much the argument used to work around the Christian Right?

  23. I kind of enjoyed the world more when people thought who you fucked, how much you make, and who you voted for were topics not fit for polite conversation.

    1. [vacates pink thing’s lawn]

      1. Now that’s a euphemism!

    2. Maybe people still think that, but don’t care so much for polite conversation.

  24. What sort of deviance is typified by dressing up in a white lab coat and quizzing strangers about their particular brand of titillation?

    “Voyeurism” doesn’t seem adequate.

    1. Kinseyism ?

  25. Lusted after someone with “dad bod?” Congratulations, you might be a mesophiliac just what HyRers are looking for!


    1. One of the great things about getting older is that, while my body was nothing special in college, being able to hold on to the same weight and build for 20 years was.

      1. I also am exactly the same size I was when I was 18.

        I’m skinny as anything, so I sort of wish I’d gained 15-20 lbs. But I don’t have to worry about getting fat.

      2. That all depends where you started.

  26. So how exactly does one go about finding a hot 20-something with Mesophilia?

    Just asking for a friend.

    1. Make a lot of money. Create an account at

      1. I’d assume the whole point of finding someone young with Mesophilia would be so you wouldn’t have to have the bank. That’s for when they DON’T have Mesophilia…

        1. Uhh, mesophilia is acquired. When confronted by a middle aged man with Bank and a yellow sports car, it comes on very suddenly.

          1. Yellow ? dafuq ?

            1. Someone’s never had a mid-life crisis.

    2. Start with “so, did your dad yell at you a lot?” That’s where the daddy-complex would start.

  27. I have a feeling Micheal Seto is entirely unaware of the existence of the nation of Japan or that the people there have sex anyway.

    So, the desire to detach your penis, wield it as a sword and slay corpses with it would be Apotemnohoplonecrophilia, right?

  28. Mesophilia ? Me so Horny !

  29. those who would describe themselves as more pansexual with regard to gender, for example, being attracted to both cis- and trans-gender women or men.”

    Anything with a hole then. *Lights Crusty signal*

  30. So, now progressives are laying the foundations for normalizing child rapists and turning pedos into a victim class. Because obviously that’s the logical next step.

    I saw a Santorum bumper sticker today. I bet that fucker will president in four years.

    1. The Kind community does not intend to be a victim class.

      It intends to be the victor class.

      Much of the infrastructure is already in place.

      The good news for humanity is that the Kind community likes children. “Us” and “Them” are joined by a shared concern for the well-being of the next generation.

      However, there remain some hard feelings toward other generations already present, and certainly towards many individuals.

  31. …all of us have “multiple sexual orientations, rather than a single sexual orientation, across a variety of different dimensions.”

    I most certainly do not, and I resent the accusation! As I like to say, it’s not whether I swing one way or the other, but that I’m not into baseball.

  32. Fetish Orientation.

    I think the problem is that lefties no speak engrish.

    1. Fetish != Orientation

      Sex != Gender

  33. If you gaze long enough into the navel, the navel also gazes into you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.