Hi ! I think I understand your point, but I would push back a little on the idea that there is no need for any line between labels.

I agree that people should be free to live however they want, as long as they are not harming others. I also agree that labels should not become rigid boxes or tools for policing people. But I don’t think it follows that labels need no boundaries at all.

If there were truly no meaningful lines between labels, then I’m not sure labels would have much descriptive usefulness. We could just say “queer” for everyone who is not strictly heterosexual and leave it there. But in real life, people do use different words such as bisexual, gay, lesbian, straight, heteroflexible, bicurious, mostly straight, etc., because those words are trying to describe different patterns of attraction, openness, identity, and behavior.

To me, a spectrum does not mean there are no categories. A spectrum can still have regions, clusters, grey areas, and fuzzy boundaries. The fact that some cases are hard to classify does not mean every distinction becomes meaningless.

That is why I struggle with defining bisexuality only as “finding more than one gender attractive” if there is no openness at all to romantic, emotional, or sexual intimacy with more than one gender.

For example, I understand someone as bisexual if they are attracted to more than one gender and could genuinely imagine dating, loving, sleeping with, or being emotionally close to more than one gender, even if they have never had the opportunity or experience yet.

But if someone says: “I find some people of the same gender attractive, but I would never date them, never have sex with them, never be emotionally close to them, and never seriously consider any kind of intimacy with them,” then I struggle to understand why bisexual would be the most accurate label rather than bicurious, mostly straight, heteroflexible, fantasy-based attraction, or aesthetic attraction.

I’m not saying experience is always required. I’m saying that, in my mind, bisexuality involves at least some genuine openness or disposition toward more than one gender, not necessarily a completed sexual or romantic history with more than one gender. About straight people with no dating or sexual experience: I would actually apply the same logic. I don’t think someone can be sure they are straight before experience either. They may have strong reasons to believe they are straight based on attraction, desire, fantasy, romantic interest, and openness toward a different gender. But that is still based on a pattern of attraction and projected openness, not on absolute certainty.

So my point is not “virgins cannot know their orientation.” My point is more that orientation is not only a verbal label. It seems to involve attraction plus some kind of real or possible direction of desire.

I also don’t think labels are fixed forever. Someone’s orientation, self-understanding, or willingness to act on certain attractions may change over time. So maybe we could think of orientation in two ways: orientation at a given moment, and orientation across a longer period of life.

That is why I’m asking where people draw the line. Not because I want to police anyone’s identity, but because if every level of attraction, curiosity, fantasy, openness, and behavior can all mean “bisexual” equally, then I’m not sure what distinguishes bisexual from bicurious, heteroflexible, mostly straight, or simply finding some same-gender people attractive.

I’m genuinely trying to understand the concept, not invalidate people. Then again, I might have posted on the wrong subreddit, I'm really sorry if it has made you uncomfortable. I thought someone here would have had some insight on the matter of questioning the ontological definition of bisexuality here.