Thank you Gentlemen. You have challenge my beliefs with well-structured and thoughtful argument (which was the point of this thread originally); and, while I may not agree with either of you, you have given me much food for thought.
Annoying stereotypes about my sexuality.
- Thread starter LogicArmour
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Argh, yes. Though, this can be applied to quite a number of things on TV, and the depiction of First Aid worries me.LogicArmour said:
But, yeah, depictions of non-white male heteronormativeness tend to suck.
[small]I'd question the idea of things being inherently "masculine" though, and there's a terrible joke about "tastes" and "dick" to be made.[/small]
"Bisexual" tends to get used loosely enough that it'd include pansexuality, but having to lie about your sexuality cause it's too much effort to constantly explain it to people...never been in that position, but I've known people that were, and it pissed them off no end.LogicArmour said:
Wait, I didn't know there's more than 2 genders. There's only 4 types of sexualities I know of. Straight, Bi, Homo, and furry. And as far as I know, a dude getting his junk inverted into fake a vagina is still a dude and vice versa. This sounds like some hipster movement to set their selves apart.
Bisexuality focuses on the two binary genders (bi = 2).RagTagBand said:
Pansexuality focuses on the multiple sexual identities (including but not limited too male and female) and attraction to them.
The hipster argument is just stupid. I use to define myself as bi until I became attracted to a transman (he called himself a "cuntboy", no joke), who identified as neither. Since then I have met others in that group and found some attractive.
For the last time pansexuality is not a "hipster movement", nor am I personally a hipster. It is a recognised sexual preference just like bisexuality, homosexuality and heterosexuality.
Pansexuality IS different to bisexuality as pansexuality spans a bigger area of attraction than bisexuality. Though, Bisexuality gets a lot of misconceptions tacked onto it.
"Bisexuals just haven't decided if they're gay or straight yet"
"They're just being greedy"
"I wouldn't date a bisexual person, like they both sexes so they're more likely to cheat"
Bare in mind i've heard these from both straight and gay people.
"Bisexuals just haven't decided if they're gay or straight yet"
"They're just being greedy"
"I wouldn't date a bisexual person, like they both sexes so they're more likely to cheat"
Bare in mind i've heard these from both straight and gay people.
I've never said this straight and I've always allowed for some wiggled room for them to justify themselves. But you sir are just wrong. You incorrect in almost every factor of that statement. The only bit you got right was "We're not talking about a slur or a derogatory term"; you are correct here. Instead we are talking about a scientifically defined and accepted sexuality that is completely separate from bisexuality.PhiMed said:
"I'm willing to sleep with men, women and everything in between?"LogicArmour said:
>.>;
I hope I'm not getting it mixed up but I think "Sex" refers to Male and Female (+ Transgender?). So that's the physical part of it. Gender is what you identify with, so ideas of masculinity, femininity and androgyny. (Probably more sub-genres, because gender has those apparently.)
So I am heterosexual because I am male and the sex I opt for is female. A man is homosexual if the sex he seeks is male. A person is bisexual if they're after both sexes (Let's assume transgender is the middle-mark between male and female sex). It's a simple physically based system, it doesn't say anything about your personality or non-physical preferences.
So I think you could fairly call yourself pansexual, but the term bisexual should apply to you too.
Not that I'm an expert. Still, sometimes it's easier just to go by the simplified definition/name for things, even if it doesn't encompass everything you want it to. I do performance studies as a subject, which is meant to study performance in countless forms but if anyone asks and I don't feel up to explaining I say drama. It's not the most accurate term for it, but it gives the gist of it. If you're facing a potential partner, just let them know you're interested, if you're not and don't want to explain, keep it simple.
So have I. It annoys to no end when people oversimplify or put down someones sexuality in this way.Nergy said:
I commend you sir. That was very well worded and insightful, and I can definitely see where you coming form with this. Sexuality can also mean what gender you are attracted to. In which case there a several gender identities.Danzavare said:
I read the wiki post, and it seems like there's a thin line between a bisexual, and pansexual.OriginalLadders said:
Bi obviously refers male and female, while I guess pan adds transexuals into the mix. So I guess in laymens terms a pansexual, would be a tri-sexual. I just made up that last word.
Hey man no offense but quite frankly I couldn't give half a shit who anyone fucks, or what their sexual orientation is. Putting out shit like this only makes people feel threatened by the idea. Bringing it up only widens the gap, kinda like black history month in the US.
In the conventional sense it doesn't. You can imagine that if it did, it'd make things really complicated. (You know, with there being no useful way of measuring degrees of masculinity and femininity, plus you'd have to account for sexual preferences such as hair colour, skin, types of personality, fetishes, etc) I think you should, in talking about it, try and keep to the simple version of sexuality. If you want to elaborate, you should appeal to your identity and discuss it with the individual. (Trust me, no label can account for the multidimensional nature of who someone is and therefore who that someone would want to be with) For example, I can tell you I'm a heterosexual male and that is accurate, but to know the kind of women I want you'd have to really know me and my history.LogicArmour said:
It's not just pansexuals that are oversimplified by sex-based definitions, but for the sake of communication, it's important to have those simplifications as a starting point.
Depending on which movie you are talking about, maybe. One of the classic versions has a cross dressing woman playing Peter's role.iLikeHippos said:
You forgot asexual!hooksashands said:
In all seriousness though, I agree with you. I still can't see the difference between bi and pan. Why does the differentiation have to be made?
The implication of the wikipedia article, insofar as what it says about pansexuals, as well as the some of the defenses and clarifications used by the OP, is that pansexuals are sexually transcendant. Which further implies that all homosexuals and bisexuals, as well as all heterosexuals regardless of their attitude towards nonstandard sexual orientations, are narrow minded bigots unable to see past gender, should we accept the pansexual's premise. I think the implication that homosexuals, and a large number of heterosexuals (and don't forget bisexuals) who thought themselves open minded and\or tolerant is, first of all, incredibly snarky and in fact if pansexuals actually hold this attitude then it should be no suprise that it would be anathemic to the rest of the world getting used to them.
-shrug- todays society is very strong in social groups and since sexuality is such a major part of the human life it would naturally become identified by what you want in life?AngloDoom said:
Plus we as humans need to name EVERYTHING.
