Do you prefer romance options with set sexualities, or playersexual?

I was thinking about this. Most Owlcat games like Wrath of the Righteous of Rogue Trader have dedicated sexual orientations for each companion. Cassie, for instance, can only be romanced by a man. Arueshalae is bisexual, and Lann is exclusive to women.

Meanwhile, games like Baldur's Gate 3 and Fallout let the player romance anyone, and their sexuality depends on the player's gender, often referred to as "Playersexual." This usually makes the cast seem universally bisexual.

I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I think it's better if everyone gets the same potential options regardless of sexuality. Still, I also think there's something uncanny about every single companion being functionally pan or bi. Having designated sexualities does reduce options overall, but it does let the romances themselves feel more individualized.

For one, I don't think I've ever been in a group consisting of four straight women and five gay men at once; in fact, I'd consider that situation somewhat suspicious. And definitely, something about BG3 I thought was uncanny was how it felt like everyone wanted to bone my character at the first opportunity. Of course, it is frustrating how I can't flirt with Camellia in WATR because I prefer playing as a woman in games. I'm a cis guy IRL, though; I just feel a bit more comfortable controlling a woman.

Regardless, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'd like for people to have as many options as possible, but a creator should also be able to tailor an experience a certain way. Certain kinds of stories, especially romance ones, need the characters to be a certain gender. On the other hand, I feel like fantasy and sci-fi are the two genres where one can more easily break away from that kind of mentality.

I don't know. What's your take?