First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Pansexuality
970 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Samsara
Offline
Posted 8/8/13

HellaStrider wrote:


Doryphoros wrote:

this isn't that complicated... to simply put it YOU FALL IN LOVE WITH THE PERSON NOT THE GENDER!


How many people actually fall in love with someone's gender. It's quite obviously the person, most of the time. That sort of explanation has a lot of flaws, especially concerning how other orientations relate.


I dont understand the flaws in my explanation can you explain them?
663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 8/8/13 , edited 8/8/13

Doryphoros wrote:


HellaStrider wrote:


Doryphoros wrote:

this isn't that complicated... to simply put it YOU FALL IN LOVE WITH THE PERSON NOT THE GENDER!


How many people actually fall in love with someone's gender. It's quite obviously the person, most of the time. That sort of explanation has a lot of flaws, especially concerning how other orientations relate.


I dont understand the flaws in my explanation can you explain them?


Well, I think I generally explained my views in the other post I made in this thread haha. There just seems to be a lot of problematic issues with how many pansexuals identify themselves / identify bisexuals. In an attempt to seem more inclusive than bisexuals, they are often ignoring the voices of the nonbinary people they claimed to be accepting of. Because a lot of nonbinary people don't find bisexuality to be binarist though pansexuals will try to define that against them, not that I'm saying bisexuality can't be binarist from person to person. Nonbinary people should be the ones to determine what discriminates against or excludes them, not the people who feel attracted to them. It just seems like pansexuals try to make their identity out to be the better, inclusive version of all orientations, but no identity should be lesser than or better than the other; it just depends on the person and their ideals. I think I also already explained how it's wrong to be gender-blind, so if you have anymore questions, I'll try to explain.
970 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Samsara
Offline
Posted 8/8/13

HellaStrider wrote:


Doryphoros wrote:


HellaStrider wrote:


Doryphoros wrote:

this isn't that complicated... to simply put it YOU FALL IN LOVE WITH THE PERSON NOT THE GENDER!


How many people actually fall in love with someone's gender. It's quite obviously the person, most of the time. That sort of explanation has a lot of flaws, especially concerning how other orientations relate.


I dont understand the flaws in my explanation can you explain them?


Well, I think I generally explained my views in the other post I made in this thread haha. There just seems to be a lot of problematic issues with how many pansexuals identify themselves / identify bisexuals. In an attempt to seem more inclusive than bisexuals, they are often ignoring the voices of the nonbinary people they claimed to be accepting of. Because a lot of nonbinary people don't find bisexuality to be binarist though pansexuals will try to define that against them, not that I'm saying bisexuality can't be binarist from person to person. Nonbinary people should be the ones to determine what discriminates against or excludes them, not the people who feel attracted to them. It just seems like pansexuals try to make their identity out to be the better, inclusive version of all orientations, but no identity should be lesser than or better than the other; it just depends on the person and their ideals. I think I also already explained how it's wrong to be gender-blind, so if you have anymore questions, I'll try to explain.

i c i c.... i did'nt fully understand what pansexual and bisexual people were but now thanks to reading your previous forum post and validating it i do and i see the flaws.. thanks
663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 8/8/13 , edited 8/8/13

Doryphoros wrote:


HellaStrider wrote:


Doryphoros wrote:


HellaStrider wrote:


Doryphoros wrote:

this isn't that complicated... to simply put it YOU FALL IN LOVE WITH THE PERSON NOT THE GENDER!


How many people actually fall in love with someone's gender. It's quite obviously the person, most of the time. That sort of explanation has a lot of flaws, especially concerning how other orientations relate.


I dont understand the flaws in my explanation can you explain them?


Well, I think I generally explained my views in the other post I made in this thread haha. There just seems to be a lot of problematic issues with how many pansexuals identify themselves / identify bisexuals. In an attempt to seem more inclusive than bisexuals, they are often ignoring the voices of the nonbinary people they claimed to be accepting of. Because a lot of nonbinary people don't find bisexuality to be binarist though pansexuals will try to define that against them, not that I'm saying bisexuality can't be binarist from person to person. Nonbinary people should be the ones to determine what discriminates against or excludes them, not the people who feel attracted to them. It just seems like pansexuals try to make their identity out to be the better, inclusive version of all orientations, but no identity should be lesser than or better than the other; it just depends on the person and their ideals. I think I also already explained how it's wrong to be gender-blind, so if you have anymore questions, I'll try to explain.

i c i c.... i did'nt fully understand what pansexual and bisexual people were but now thanks to reading your previous forum post and validating it i do and i see the flaws.. thanks


Yeah, it can be a hard issue to breach if you're not knowledgeable about nonbinary concerns and orientations in general. I'm still learning too so just try to listen to the sides of all involved before coming up with a personal explanation of their identities and you'll be fine.
14036 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / the Internet
Offline
Posted 8/9/13
I've recently been doing a lot of playing around with the term, and trying to figure out the difference between pan and bi. All I've noticed is the strange false dichotomy between bi being about the two genders and pan being genderless, when in reality I've seen that if you're "bi enough" (because i don't give two farts about political correctness), at a certain point you become essentially pan, because to gender-discriminate at the sexual level becomes obviously hypocritical.

i'm starting to think that pan is the updated word for bi, as bisexual was coined prior to the sweeping changes that radical feminism as well as the LGBT movement brought to the fold. As we now live in a world that's more gender/sex complicated than the male-female model, the word "bi" kind of outgrew its capacity as a useful term to explain the several patterns of identification that exists. so in a way, pansexuals are wrong to accuse bisexuals of recognizing genders (when most in fact are just as open-minded), but bisexuals have to realize that the term they use to relate to themselves is more restrictive than the reality. Otherwise the vast majority of people will be fed up of scratching their heads and will just equate pan with bi.

that's just my two cents. I'm considering identifying as pan due to the gender-blindness explanation, as well as some observation of bisexuals going through roughly demarcated swings between hetero and homo orientations (i.e. phases when they simply say "i'm not feeling guys right now"), regardless of whether or not they recognize the intersex genders.
44349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 8/10/13 , edited 8/10/13

LeFlamel wrote:

I've recently been doing a lot of playing around with the term, and trying to figure out the difference between pan and bi. All I've noticed is the strange false dichotomy between bi being about the two genders and pan being genderless, when in reality I've seen that if you're "bi enough" (because i don't give two farts about political correctness), at a certain point you become essentially pan, because to gender-discriminate at the sexual level becomes obviously hypocritical.

i'm starting to think that pan is the updated word for bi, as bisexual was coined prior to the sweeping changes that radical feminism as well as the LGBT movement brought to the fold. As we now live in a world that's more gender/sex complicated than the male-female model, the word "bi" kind of outgrew its capacity as a useful term to explain the several patterns of identification that exists. so in a way, pansexuals are wrong to accuse bisexuals of recognizing genders (when most in fact are just as open-minded), but bisexuals have to realize that the term they use to relate to themselves is more restrictive than the reality. Otherwise the vast majority of people will be fed up of scratching their heads and will just equate pan with bi.

that's just my two cents. I'm considering identifying as pan due to the gender-blindness explanation, as well as some observation of bisexuals going through roughly demarcated swings between hetero and homo orientations (i.e. phases when they simply say "i'm not feeling guys right now"), regardless of whether or not they recognize the intersex genders.
Interesting observations and comments, I think they have validity. It seems plausible that the simple terminology for someone who is interested in either sex would enter our lexicon as the word "bisexual" as it is now before the implications of omnisexuality that self-described bisexuals may actually be experiencing have been brought to forefront by an increasing number of people who feel the word bisexual is inadequate. However the human condition seems forever tied to labels that even people who tout that labels are overrated will find that there is a label that suits them best. So essentially can we truly say what a self-described bisexual and what self-described pansexual is feeling are exactly the same thing? The only way to answer that question is if we are capable of comparing our own experiences and feelings from the perspective of someone else. And with current technology and everything we know about the human mind, psychology and sexuality, that prospect is still impossible to achieve.

14036 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / the Internet
Offline
Posted 8/11/13

JustineKo2 wrote:


LeFlamel wrote:

I've recently been doing a lot of playing around with the term, and trying to figure out the difference between pan and bi. All I've noticed is the strange false dichotomy between bi being about the two genders and pan being genderless, when in reality I've seen that if you're "bi enough" (because i don't give two farts about political correctness), at a certain point you become essentially pan, because to gender-discriminate at the sexual level becomes obviously hypocritical.

i'm starting to think that pan is the updated word for bi, as bisexual was coined prior to the sweeping changes that radical feminism as well as the LGBT movement brought to the fold. As we now live in a world that's more gender/sex complicated than the male-female model, the word "bi" kind of outgrew its capacity as a useful term to explain the several patterns of identification that exists. so in a way, pansexuals are wrong to accuse bisexuals of recognizing genders (when most in fact are just as open-minded), but bisexuals have to realize that the term they use to relate to themselves is more restrictive than the reality. Otherwise the vast majority of people will be fed up of scratching their heads and will just equate pan with bi.

that's just my two cents. I'm considering identifying as pan due to the gender-blindness explanation, as well as some observation of bisexuals going through roughly demarcated swings between hetero and homo orientations (i.e. phases when they simply say "i'm not feeling guys right now"), regardless of whether or not they recognize the intersex genders.
Interesting observations and comments, I think they have validity. It seems plausible that the simple terminology for someone who is interested in either sex would enter our lexicon as the word "bisexual" as it is now before the implications of omnisexuality that self-described bisexuals may actually be experiencing have been brought to forefront by an increasing number of people who feel the word bisexual is inadequate. However the human condition seems forever tied to labels that even people who tout that labels are overrated will find that there is a label that suits them best. So essentially can we truly say what a self-described bisexual and what self-described pansexual is feeling are exactly the same thing? The only way to answer that question is if we are capable of comparing our own experiences and feelings from the perspective of someone else. And with current technology and everything we know about the human mind, psychology and sexuality, that prospect is still impossible to achieve.



Given that impossibility, we shouldn't even venture into questions of qualia, but I think there's quite a degree for variation in individual experience. There could be bisexuals that deliberately exclude the intersex gender on the ground of "unnaturalness." One difference some people seem to pick up is a dichotomy between physical attraction and mental attraction; bisexuals are physically attracted to both gender forms whereas pansexuals are more psychologically attracted to the individual and thus overlook gender entirely. This romantic outlook on pansexuality is likely derived from the notion of "gender-blindness." Not only do we all have our own labels, we all have our own interpretations of their meaning.
663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 8/11/13 , edited 8/11/13

JustineKo2 wrote:


LeFlamel wrote:

I've recently been doing a lot of playing around with the term, and trying to figure out the difference between pan and bi. All I've noticed is the strange false dichotomy between bi being about the two genders and pan being genderless, when in reality I've seen that if you're "bi enough" (because i don't give two farts about political correctness), at a certain point you become essentially pan, because to gender-discriminate at the sexual level becomes obviously hypocritical.

i'm starting to think that pan is the updated word for bi, as bisexual was coined prior to the sweeping changes that radical feminism as well as the LGBT movement brought to the fold. As we now live in a world that's more gender/sex complicated than the male-female model, the word "bi" kind of outgrew its capacity as a useful term to explain the several patterns of identification that exists. so in a way, pansexuals are wrong to accuse bisexuals of recognizing genders (when most in fact are just as open-minded), but bisexuals have to realize that the term they use to relate to themselves is more restrictive than the reality. Otherwise the vast majority of people will be fed up of scratching their heads and will just equate pan with bi.

that's just my two cents. I'm considering identifying as pan due to the gender-blindness explanation, as well as some observation of bisexuals going through roughly demarcated swings between hetero and homo orientations (i.e. phases when they simply say "i'm not feeling guys right now"), regardless of whether or not they recognize the intersex genders.

Interesting observations and comments, I think they have validity. It seems plausible that the simple terminology for someone who is interested in either sex would enter our lexicon as the word "bisexual" as it is now before the implications of omnisexuality that self-described bisexuals may actually be experiencing have been brought to forefront by an increasing number of people who feel the word bisexual is inadequate. However the human condition seems forever tied to labels that even people who tout that labels are overrated will find that there is a label that suits them best. So essentially can we truly say what a self-described bisexual and what self-described pansexual is feeling are exactly the same thing? The only way to answer that question is if we are capable of comparing our own experiences and feelings from the perspective of someone else. And with current technology and everything we know about the human mind, psychology and sexuality, that prospect is still impossible to achieve.



That's practically it. The definition of what a bisexual is, from a bisexual's point of view, and another person's point of view may clash and thus there will always be an argument when trying to figure out exactly what a person is because we somehow have to know for sure how to label our specific interests or whatnot. The recent dilemma is probably formed by the increasing awareness of non-binary genders, and the integration of it into lgbt cutlure has expanded on just how much the definitions apply and that varies from person to person.
10577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / chicagoland
Offline
Posted 8/11/13
i would comment more on the topic but apparently some people prefer to live in a fairy tale because reality is too offensive.
44349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 8/11/13

swirly_commode wrote:

i would comment more on the topic but apparently some people prefer to live in a fairy tale because reality is too offensive.
I would comment more on your comment but apparently some people prefer to live with their head up their ass because reality stinks too much.

10577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / chicagoland
Offline
Posted 8/11/13
lol.
if i took the time to explain how attitudes and social norms change over the decades through "rebellion" like this pansexualism idea, i dont think most of you would understand it. its pretty obvious that you all just want to accept the surface condition while ignoring the underlying ideology behind it, but then, isnt that the modern emo ideology anyway? to go out of your way to show acceptance of any "new idea or human label" to prove to the world just how inclusive you can really be. most the of gays i know consider this to be a subculture of gay sexuality where its kind of like attempting to be trendy to fit into a perceived stereotype by being overtly accepting of the idea. its kind of common in young people who are rebelling against their parents moral codes by jumping off the deep end and then pretending to be a martyr by acting like they are breaking stereotypes and trying to open peoples eyes and minds. real homosexualism isnt a choice. with that being said a lot of you are consciously making a choice to be pansexual, transgender, or just plain gay for whatever your reasons. its pretty plainly obvious to me whos doing it purposely for reasons other than their own sexual identity even if it isnt obvious to the ones doing it.

also, i dont care if you want to be gay. id like to see the ban on gay marriage lifted because i dont think anyone has the right to tell anyone else who they can and cant be in love with. some 1500yo religious dogma is not a reason to keep one group of couples who love each other from sharing all the same legal benefits as another group of couples who love each other just as much.
i think it would go a lot faster and smoother if kids didnt have to choose a label to identify themselves and try to define what the label means through some faux social activism. you dont have to be "goth" or "preppy" or "pansexual", just stfu and get on with your life in whatever manor you choose.
663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 8/12/13 , edited 8/12/13

swirly_commode wrote:

lol.
if i took the time to explain how attitudes and social norms change over the decades through "rebellion" like this pansexualism idea, i dont think most of you would understand it. its pretty obvious that you all just want to accept the surface condition while ignoring the underlying ideology behind it, but then, isnt that the modern emo ideology anyway? to go out of your way to show acceptance of any "new idea or human label" to prove to the world just how inclusive you can really be. most the of gays i know consider this to be a subculture of gay sexuality where its kind of like attempting to be trendy to fit into a perceived stereotype by being overtly accepting of the idea. its kind of common in young people who are rebelling against their parents moral codes by jumping off the deep end and then pretending to be a martyr by acting like they are breaking stereotypes and trying to open peoples eyes and minds. real homosexualism isnt a choice. with that being said a lot of you are consciously making a choice to be pansexual, transgender, or just plain gay for whatever your reasons. its pretty plainly obvious to me whos doing it purposely for reasons other than their own sexual identity even if it isnt obvious to the ones doing it.

also, i dont care if you want to be gay. id like to see the ban on gay marriage lifted because i dont think anyone has the right to tell anyone else who they can and cant be in love with. some 1500yo religious dogma is not a reason to keep one group of couples who love each other from sharing all the same legal benefits as another group of couples who love each other just as much.
i think it would go a lot faster and smoother if kids didnt have to choose a label to identify themselves and try to define what the label means through some faux social activism. you dont have to be "goth" or "preppy" or "pansexual", just stfu and get on with your life in whatever manor you choose.


Of course you're the type who believes being gay / trans* / etc. has become a trend. You do realize that type of mindset is a lot more harmful for the movement than helpful. Believe it or not, a lot of closeted people can be unsure about themselves and when you tell them that them being unsure of it means they're faking it, they might actually believe you and force themselves to come to a realization that isn't right and based around your perception of them. You don't have the rights to tell them what qualifications they need to be to be gay, bi, whatever. They aren't so much making a choice to be it rather than having always felt different but not being sure if they're ready to accept it or if the label actually represents them correctly. All you've done by replying in this thread so far is prove that you're completely ignorant of our struggles and that the best way to act in accordance to something unknown to you is to laugh and say it doesn't exist based on age old beliefs about social norms/gender roles. You sounded like you were going somewhere when you stated that you know social norms have been evolving now that we have been pushing towards more awareness and more people are opening up, thus the increasing number of people who aren't straight and cis rather than it just being "trendy", but everything after was just a long nasty fart.
Also, you shut the fuck up about our issues. We pretty much never get represented in the media/anywhere ever and making groups or discussions are pretty much our only spot to discuss how it's affected us. But apparently to people like you, having even this small thread is giving too much to us. We should just get over the problems that have likely affected each of us deeply because you said so and that will magically make all our issues disappear.
10577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / chicagoland
Offline
Posted 8/12/13

Of course you're the type who believes being gay / trans* / etc. has become a trend.


i stopped reading right there because you clearly didnt understand what i said.
because of that, im going to assume that you are the type who perceives this gay stereotype as guys who act all feminine and listen to show tunes and you want to be that guy like a goth kid perceives a stereotype and wants to be that kid. while there are many actual gays who do choose to act like that, there are also many more who dont and understand that that stereotype is part of the "trend", a trend that a lot of younger people today want to be a part of.
i also think most of you arent open minded enough to understand what im saying or to see your own seterotyping of yourself and those you label likewise. from what i see, you think that being gay means you have certain personality traits which you find attractive and want to emulate. being gay, or whatever label you choose, doesnt give you a lisp and it doesnt make you like show tunes. those are the stereotype portrayed in media, and by a lot of your own people, by which you self identify.
if you could move past those stereotypes i think it would be a lot better for you as a group but when you have people coming out and expanding those stereotypes and adding more labels to the subculture for people to choose and identify as, it only hurts your cause.
663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 8/12/13

swirly_commode wrote:


Of course you're the type who believes being gay / trans* / etc. has become a trend.


i stopped reading right there because you clearly didnt understand what i said.
because of that, im going to assume that you are the type who perceives this gay stereotype as guys who act all feminine and listen to show tunes and you want to be that guy like a goth kid perceives a stereotype and wants to be that kid. while there are many actual gays who do choose to act like that, there are also many more who dont and understand that that stereotype is part of the "trend", a trend that a lot of younger people today want to be a part of.
i also think most of you arent open minded enough to understand what im saying or to see your own seterotyping of yourself and those you label likewise. from what i see, you think that being gay means you have certain personality traits which you find attractive and want to emulate. being gay, or whatever label you choose, doesnt give you a lisp and it doesnt make you like show tunes. those are the stereotype portrayed in media, and by a lot of your own people, by which you self identify.
if you could move past those stereotypes i think it would be a lot better for you as a group but when you have people coming out and expanding those stereotypes and adding more labels to the subculture for people to choose and identify as, it only hurts your cause.


I can't tell if your entire post is bullshit because you're trying to satirize my response or you actually think anything you're saying has relevance to my comment. I'm stereotyping myself huh? Next thing you know, you'll say I'm the one oppressing myself. I really don't want to read any more comments you have to post because you're practically telling me that I don't know how my own identity works and that I should submit to your definition of what I should be because trying to assert who I am and having a fucking voice means I'm moving our movement backwards and setting stereotypes (where the fuck did this come from).
10577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / chicagoland
Offline
Posted 8/13/13
look dude, i probably know more gay guys than you do.
when i say "you" i dont mean you directly.
get over yourself and move on with your life.

and yes, a lot of gays dont like the ones who prance around and talk with a lisp. being gay doesnt make you do that. that is a choice you made to act a certain way which you think gays are supposed to act.
if you specificaly act like the stereotypical gay kid you see on TV then yes, you are stereotyping yourself.
if not, then carry on and have a good day with your bad self.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.