We could define our sexual orientation disconnected from our sex

Besides our sex, sexual orientation has become a major criterion in comparing people. So can one say: he has five children, three daughters and two sons, two homos and three straights. Homosexuality and heterosexuality combine people’s sex or gender with sexual preference. So, a man who needs a fellow man for sexual unity is called a homosexual man.

But there is another way to categorize people by sexual orientation – possibly not better or worse, but different. These two possibilities next to each other may show how arbitrary it is to go by only one or the other.

Sexual orientation can be defined loose from the sex of the one having the preference. We could speak of gynophiles (people attracted to women) and androphiles (people who have a sexual preference for men). Gynophiles, people who feel like being intimate with women, would be heterosexual men and lesbian women. Androphiles, people inclined to fancy men, would be homosexual men and heterosexual women. Practically, how could this be useful?

Take the following example. A family with two children. The son is gay, the daughter is straight, and so is the father but the mother is lesbian. Researchers would be interested what correlation there could be between a lesbian mother and a homosexual son. Or what is the chance that if one of the children has one orientation, the other would have the other. This all spouts from how we got used to define sexual orientation.

Same family, but we now name them differently. The parents are both gynophiles and the children are both androphiles. This would lead to different questions from social scientists. What is the chance that all children raised by a gynophile couple (straight man and lesbian woman / two straight men / two lesbian women) would be all androphiles?

More examples

Questions about family and friendship dynamics can be biased by only defining sexual orientation as the relationship between people’s sexes (men attracted to men) and not as the other possibility: defining only to what sex attracted (people attracted to men). One could investigate if there is a difference between to what kind of men different categories of androphiles, straight women and gay men, are attracted. Or what kind of men gynophiles, straight men and lesbian women, like as platonic friends.

Tony and Miriam set out to set up the office from scratch. They each had their own responsibilities to meet the deadline, but also many joint projects. They enjoyed their time together and over the weeks became best friends. Their chemistry may have been helped by their genders and sexual preferences. Miriam, as a heterosexual woman, is charmed by ‘la petite difference‘ with him. Tony, on the other hand, as a homosexual man (homo means same), is pleased with their commonality as androphiles.

Androphiles who are dating always need to ask themselves if they’re not enchanted by a self-confident charmer who would turn out to be a violent powerholic as soon as the front door closes. There are also violent female spouses, making the home front hell, but violent men sometimes murder, which demands of androphiles to watch out for this a tad more.

Advertisers could talk about attracting gynophile customers (those sexually interested in women) or targeting the androphile market (those attracted to men).

Lastly, above, I claimed that there is no qualitative difference between using homosexual / heterosexual and androphile / gynophile. Yet, one could say that the first dichotomy refers to not / yes capable of producing the next generation with their favorite partner choice. That may seem a preferred classification. However, sexuality clearly is not just for procreation.

(This was true even beyond our present times, now contraceptives have untangled sexuality and reproduction and now we live much longer lives with greater demands on and expectations of our intimate relationships. Research shows that in the past, even 60% of all men never had progeny that had any offspring, while only 20% of all women stayed without on-living descendants. In other words, sexuality has always been important besides for having children.)

This, by the way, is not a biological abnormality. Many organs and functions of our bodies have dual purposes. Our eyes can tear from sadness but also to wash off irritants. Our kidneys “filter” (it works much more complicated than filtering) our blood but also promote the creation of red blood cells. The heart pumps our blood but also produces a hormone involved in lowering blood pressure in many ways. And sex is fit for reproduction and for bonding with a spouse.

Our understanding of sexual orientation and human interaction may be broadened and enriched by using, next to heterosexual and homosexual, also the terms androphile and gynophile. Let’s begin popularizing the terms.

About the Author

MM is a prolific and creative writer and thinker, previously a daily blog contributor to the TOI. He often makes his readers laugh, mad, or assume he's nuts—close to perfect blogging. He's proud that his analytical short comments are removed both from left-wing and right-wing news sites. None of his content is generated by the new bore on the block, AI. * As a frontier thinker, he sees things many don't yet. He's half a prophet. Half. Let's not exaggerate. Or not at all because he doesn't claim G^d talks to him. He gives him good ideas—that's all. MM doesn't believe that people observe and think in a vacuum. He, therefore, wanted a broad bio that readers interested can track a bit what (lack of) backgrounds, experiences, and educations contribute to his visions. * This year, he will prioritize getting his unpublished books published rather than just blog posts. Next year, he hopes to focus on activism against human extinction. To find less-recent posts on a subject XXX among his over 2000 archived ones, go to the right-top corner of a Times of Israel page, click on the search icon and search "zuiden, XXX". One can find a second, wilder blog, to which one may subscribe too, here: https://mmvanzuiden.wordpress.com/ or by clicking on the globe icon next to his picture on top. * Like most of his readers, he believes in being friendly, respectful, and loyal. However, if you think those are his absolute top priorities, you might end up disappointed. His first loyalty is to the truth. He will try to stay within the limits of democratic and Jewish law, but he won't lie to support opinions or people when don't deserve that. (Yet, we all make honest mistakes, which is just fine and does not justify losing support.) He admits that he sometimes exaggerates to make a point, which could have him come across as nasty, while in actuality, he's quite a lovely person to interact with. He holds - how Dutch - that a strong opinion doesn't imply intolerance of other views. * Sometimes he's misunderstood because his wide and diverse field of vision seldomly fits any specialist's box. But that's exactly what some love about him. He has written a lot about Psychology (including Sexuality and Abuse), Medicine (including physical immortality), Science (including basic statistics), Politics (Israel, the US, and the Netherlands, Activism - more than leftwing or rightwing, he hopes to highlight reality), Oppression and Liberation (intersectionally, for young people, the elderly, non-Whites, women, workers, Jews, LGBTQIA+, foreigners and anyone else who's dehumanized or exploited), Integrity, Philosophy, Jews (Judaism, Zionism, Holocaust and Jewish Liberation), the Climate Crisis, Ecology and Veganism, Affairs from the news, or the Torah Portion of the Week, or new insights that suddenly befell him. * Chronologically, his most influential teachers are his parents, Nico (natan) van Zuiden and Betty (beisye) Nieweg, Wim Kan, Mozart, Harvey Jackins, Marshal Rosenberg, Reb Shlomo Carlebach, and, lehavdil bein chayim lechayim, Rabbi Dr. Natan Lopes Cardozo, Rav Zev Leff, and Rav Meir Lubin. This short list doesn't mean to disrespect others who taught him a lot or a little. One of his rabbis calls him Mr. Innovation [Ish haChidushim]. Yet, his originalities seem to root deeply in traditional Judaism, though they may grow in unexpected directions. In fact, he claims he's modernizing nothing. Rather, mainly basing himself on the basic Hebrew Torah text, he tries to rediscover classical Jewish thought almost lost in thousands of years of stifling Gentile domination and Jewish assimilation. (He pleads for a close reading of the Torah instead of going by rough assumptions of what it would probably mean and before fleeing to Commentaries.) This, in all aspects of life, but prominently in the areas of Free Will, Activism, Homosexuality for men, and Redemption. * He hopes that his words will inspire and inform, and disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed. He aims to bring a fresh perspective rather than harp on the obvious and familiar. When he can, he loves to write encyclopedic overviews. He doesn't expect his readers to agree. Rather, original minds should be disputed. In short, his main political positions are among others: anti-Trumpism, for Zionism, Intersectionality, non-violence, anti those who abuse democratic liberties, anti the fake ME peace process, for original-Orthodoxy, pro-Science, pro-Free Will, anti-blaming-the-victim, and for down-to-earth, classical optimism, and happiness. Read his blog on how he attempts to bridge any tensions between those ideas or fields. * He is a fetal survivor of the pharmaceutical industry (https://diethylstilbestrol.co.uk/studies/des-and-psychological-health/), born in 1953 to his parents who were Dutch-Jewish Holocaust survivors who met in the largest concentration camp in the Netherlands, Westerbork. He grew up a humble listener. It took him decades to become a speaker too, and decades more to admit to being a genius. But his humility was his to keep. And so was his honesty. Bullies and con artists almost instantaneously envy and hate him. He hopes to bring new things and not just preach to the choir. * He holds a BA in medicine (University of Amsterdam) – is half a doctor. He practices Re-evaluation Co-counseling since 1977, is not an official teacher anymore, and became a friendly, powerful therapist. He became a social activist, became religious, made Aliyah, and raised three wonderful kids. Previously, for decades, he was known to the Jerusalem Post readers as a frequent letter writer. For a couple of years, he was active in hasbara to the Dutch-speaking public. He wrote an unpublished tome about Jewish Free Will. He's a strict vegan since 2008. He's an Orthodox Jew but not a rabbi. * His writing has been made possible by an allowance for second-generation Holocaust survivors from the Netherlands. It has been his dream since he was 38 to try to make a difference by teaching through writing. He had three times 9-out-of-10 for Dutch at his high school finals but is spending his days communicating in English and Hebrew - how ironic. G-d must have a fine sense of humor. In case you wonder - yes, he is a bit dyslectic. If you're a native English speaker and wonder why you should read from people whose English is only their second language, consider the advantage of having an original peek outside of your cultural bubble. * To send any personal reaction to him, scroll to the top of the blog post and click Contact Me. * His newest books you may find here: https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AMoshe-Mordechai%2FMaurits+van+Zuiden&s=relevancerank&text=Moshe-Mordechai%2FMaurits+van+Zuiden&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1