Do you think Pansexuality is a thing? [Archive] - Page 2 - ThisisBigBrother.com

user104658

22-05-2018, 07:01 AM

Being bisexual comes with it's own problems, especially if you're a man since a lot of people will think male bisexuals are gay people in denial.

I think this is potentially because there is an idea that female sexuality is generally more fluid so people "believe in" female bisexuals, whereas they think male bisexuality is a myth and therefore any male claiming to be bisexual is a half-in-the-closet gay man.

I personally don't think those huge differences between male and female sexuality actually exist, though, as the fluidity of female sexuality is much less than it seems; there are many females who will engage in heavy flirting / petting and even sexual activity with other females but purely "for fun" and would not have any meaningful relationship beyond that with another female, and IMO those individuals are still effectively heterosexual. Whereas heterosexual males would be far less likely to do so, probably for mainly social-psych reasons (it was MUCH more common in earlier civilisations, for example).

Don't get me wrong though, if someone wants to label themselves as 'Pansexual' I'm all for it - it isn't harming or affecting me in any way.

I'm kind of reaching the conclusion that what "pansexual" basically is, is a dating indicator or "flag". It's a quick and simple way for someone on the dating scene to tell others that they are bisexuals who are open to relationships with transsexuals and those who consider themselves to be "neither". In that useage, its totally fine, maybe it even IS required because its a bit distasteful, I suppose, to have to add "trans is fine" to your profile?

However it seems like it's utility ends there and therefore, it's basically jargon; only relevant to certain people, and only at a certain time in their lives. Which is totally fine... However... Expecting everyone else in society to "keep up with" the latest terms and their meanings, and use them accurately (when it seems like there isn't even a full concensus on the right usage) is an unreasonable request and a pointless one... Because its completely irrelevant information to anyone else, as it should be.

Like... Of the friends I've kept since school, quite a close group of three of us, two of us are straight and married and one is gay, and will soon be married. But I don't even think of it in those terms? At this point we're just three people with life partners :shrug:. I don't meet up with them and think "AHA! Here he is, my good homosexual friend!" :think:

Crimson Dynamo

22-05-2018, 07:10 AM

Just anyone talking about what their sexual proclivities are is vile

user104658

22-05-2018, 07:11 AM

Just anyone talking about what their sexual proclivities are is vileOnly if you're sexually repressed LT. Come on. Open up. G... Give it up LT. Tell us. Tell us your wildest fantasies. Go on. You know you want to.

Crimson Dynamo

22-05-2018, 07:14 AM

Only if you're sexually repressed LT. Come on. Open up. G... Give it up LT. Tell us. Tell us your wildest fantasies. Go on. You know you want to.

2 weather girls, MO trained, big cold fronts, updraughts, huge hailstones..

:drool:

kirklancaster

22-05-2018, 09:17 AM

2 weather girls, MO trained, big cold fronts, updraughts, huge hailstones..

:drool:

:joker:

kirklancaster

22-05-2018, 09:19 AM

I think this is potentially because there is an idea that female sexuality is generally more fluid so people "believe in" female bisexuals, whereas they think male bisexuality is a myth and therefore any male claiming to be bisexual is a half-in-the-closet gay man.

I personally don't think those huge differences between male and female sexuality actually exist, though, as the fluidity of female sexuality is much less than it seems; there are many females who will engage in heavy flirting / petting and even sexual activity with other females but purely "for fun" and would not have any meaningful relationship beyond that with another female, and IMO those individuals are still effectively heterosexual. Whereas heterosexual males would be far less likely to do so, probably for mainly social-psych reasons.

I'm kind of reaching the conclusion that what "pansexual" basically is, is a dating indicator or "flag". It's a quick and simple way for someone on the dating scene to tell others that they are bisexuals who are open to relationships with transsexuals and those who consider themselves to be "neither". In that useage, its totally fine, maybe it even IS required because its a bit distasteful, I suppose, to have to add "trans is fine" to your profile?

However it seems like it's utility ends there and therefore, it's basically jargon; only relevant to certain people, and only at a certain time in their lives. Which is totally fine... However... Expecting everyone else in society to "keep up with" the latest terms and their meanings, and use them accurately (when it seems like there isn't even a full concensus on the right usage) is an unreasonable request and a pointless one... Because its completely irrelevant information to anyone else, as it should be.

Like... Of the friends I've kept since school, quite a close group of three of us, two of us are straight and married and one is gay, and will soon be married. But I don't even think of it in those terms? At this point we're just three people with life partners :shrug:. I don't meet up with them and think "AHA! Here he is, my good homosexual friend!" :think:

Another great post, T.S - you really do have an insight into this type of stuff and even I can follow what you are saying. :laugh:

Twosugars

22-05-2018, 02:38 PM

2 weather girls, MO trained, big cold fronts, updraughts, huge hailstones..

:drool:

weather girls treading on your leathery trumpet and ballsack with their high heels?

filth

Vicky.

29-05-2018, 06:37 PM

Just been looking over threads from last time I was on. No, I do not think pansexuality is a thing tbh. I think todays youth just want even more and more labels. 68 different sexualities. 67846 different genders. A special word for people with their hair dyed blue, a label for how quickly one does their homework and so on. And its getting a bit silly. Pansexuality is bisexuality. Yet many many pansexuals sneer at bisexuals...why?! They are literally the same thing. You are both attracted to both sexes :shrug:

Oliver_W

29-05-2018, 06:43 PM

Vicky.

29-05-2018, 06:55 PM

See I've heard this line of removing the sex from the whole equation before but that still doesn't make much sense to me. Ultimately you are playing with someone's genitals, whatever their gender is, so just resting and saying "I fall in love with a person, not a sex :)" is just incredibly condescending to anyone who identifies as anything other than pansexual. Also implies all homosexual males only like cis men, all heterosexual females only like cis men, etc. etc.

Well, quite.

Doesn't everyone fall in love with the person, not the genitals anyway?! I mean I have 3 friends who always considered themselves 100% straight (and in one case, 100% gay...to the point where he thought anything to do with vagina was totally vile, a sentiment seemingly shared by many on this forum :D), but then fell in love with someone and basically..'got over' the fact that this person was the 'wrong' sex for the sexuality they thought they were. In one of those cases it was not so much 'got over' it, but that it didn't matter as they were in love. I cannot speak on this with any authority given I have always been bi myself mind, I can only go off what others say. But I have never really thought 'omg, he has a dick, I want it' rather than like...it being the person I was attracted to.

I guess I could maybe be described as pansexual too, if I was that pretentious. As honestly, if I was very attracted to someone I thought was a guy and it turned out they were female..it probably wouldn't bother me all that much, same as if they looked like a woman and had a dick. Which is my understanding of what pansexual is. So yes, by very definition, those describing themselves as pansexual are implying that 'mere bisexuals' are transphobic, as not all bisexual people would be happy being with someone who looked like a bloke who had a fanny, or looked like a woman and had a dick (see also cotton ceiling...which is now slowly moving onto gay men from my understanding, and its now transphobic for gay men to be..well attracted to male people. Rather than only for lesbians to be attracted to females)

Bisexual people are attracted to both sexes. Some would be fine with a mix up of both sexes. Some will not. What appears to be happening, and has been happening for some time now, is that those bisexual people who are attracted to a mismatch of sexual characteristics (including 'gender identity'..as noone can be attracted to gender identity alone as its something in the mind) are making out that there is something wrong with not being attracted to a mismatch of characteristics. Or that bisexual people who would not, for example, have sex with a butch woman, but they would with a more feminine woman...are in the wrong in some way. Or that bisexual people who would sleep with male and female people, but not someone who was female but had been taking testosterone..is transphobic.

Its just a need for more labels when really, we should be having less. And in many cases the need to be the white knight, protecting people against all those nasty people who do not want to sleep with them. Really..

I know a fair few youngsters who define themselves as 'pansexual' but have never had a relationship with anyone of the same sex, let alone the same sex but 'different'..but who will still berate lesbians for being lesbians and will sneer at bisexual people for not defining themselves as pan as apparently bi is transphobic.

This went on way longer that I meant it too, and I may add another couple of essays to this thread tbh as I posted before actually reading the thread :blush2:

Vicky.

29-05-2018, 06:56 PM

but if you like their personality INSTEAD of their gender, that makes it unique and special!!!!111one!!

Doesn't everyone fall in love with the person, not the genitals anyway?! I mean I have 3 friends who always considered themselves 100% straight (and in one case, 100% gay...to the point where he thought anything to do with vagina was totally vile, a sentiment seemingly shared by many on this forum :D), but then fell in love with someone and basically..'got over' the fact that this person was the 'wrong' sex for the sexuality they thought they were. In one of those cases it was not so much 'got over' it, but that it didn't matter as they were in love. I cannot speak on this with any authority given I have always been bi myself mind, I can only go off what others say. But I have never really thought 'omg, he has a dick, I want it' rather than like...it being the person I was attracted to.

Heh :laugh: Was writing this and did not see your reply

Vicky.

29-05-2018, 07:22 PM

No, it means you don't find anyone attractive at all, until you build a very strong friendship and emotional connection. You are basically asexual outside of that. So it counts as a branch of asexuality.

I thought the label for that was 'aromantic'

Seems some labels just mean the same thing? Like pan and bi I guess.

Brillopad

29-05-2018, 07:24 PM

Vicky.

29-05-2018, 07:52 PM

I just think it's a huge oversimplification of heterosexual sexuality to say that it's about "liking specific genitals".

I can aesthetically appreciate the female form. I can aesthetically appreciate the male form. I (thus far I suppose??) have never been interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with a male. And my attraction to females isn't 100% reliant on stereotypical "attractive norms". Is anyone's? If someone is attracted to one brunette with a certain body type, does that mean they will DEFINITELY be attracted to a different brunette with that body type, if she has a different personality and carries herself differently?

For example, there's a reason that that old phrase "Oh you'll like him / her, they're JUST your type!" rarely works. The person who is supposed to like this other person who is their "type" nine times out of ten will be like "Meh... Nah."... Because attraction is subtle and nuanced.

Also the reason that you can be highly attracted to, say, a TV or movie character... But be left completely cold when you see the actor in an interview, if the actor is nothing like the role they're playing.

This is normal sexuality. I get the feeling that those arguing for "pansexuality" don't get that attraction to personality is a HUGE (the biggest) component in all sexualities?

Amazing post tbh, but especially the bolded parts.

I never really thought about this before, but yeah, the TV character thing is spot on. I fancy some actors so much in some stuff, and then in other stuff just..no, or yeah in TV interviews and that too. I never really thought about it too much but of course its because of the character, rather than the looks.

A great example of this I think for me is, and this will show how my type is 'generally' geeky, but not 'geeky' as in appearance especially..is criminal minds. Not sure how many people on here watch it mind..but yeah. There is a character on it called Spencer Reid. I thought he was fairly gross tbh when I started watching it. But after maybe half a series, I fancied him like mad, and still do...and have just recently found out that hes actually a model too..so quite how I ever thought he was gross on first impressions is beyond me, but I did D: Was the same with Dexter Morgan, not attracted to him at all, then fancied him like mad from a few episodes in...right up til the end. However, watching the actor in other stuff, or in interviews is just such a nono...its Dexter Morgan that I fancy, not Michael C Hall.

This happens near every year on BB too. I can really fancy people on first appearances (which is probably how I had so many one night stands when younger tbh, with people I had just met) but once I know their personality too..everything changes. the best example of this I think was Dale in BB9. He was stunning. But after a couple of weeks? I found him grotesque tbh. Going the opposite way..Freddie in BB10. Thought he was not attractive at all, but come halfway through the series, I fancied him like mad. And then started going off him in that way once he started getting really arrogant (something I tend to hate in people) and now, cannot see what the hell I ever saw in him, though still appreciate him as a housemate.

I am bisexual, I think females and female bodies are much much better to look at than male ones, however I prefer actually having sex with male people..as there are so many other differences than just ****ing genitals. I do, however, prefer kissing female people. Maybe I have just had good luck with the females I have kissed, but women kiss so much better than men do tbh :laugh:

So yeah, of course its all so much more complicated than some would have us believe. Some people are shallow enough to be only interested in aesthetics...but the vast6 vast majority I would wager, care about so much more than just looks...or genitals. Genitals are odd looking things anyway, I think. I cannot imagine being attracted to a walking vagina, and I would just piss myself laughing at a walking cock and balls.

Vicky.

29-05-2018, 08:19 PM

If we had to only have four adjectives, I would agree. A sexual attraction to a man is very different to an attraction to a man otherwise asexuality wouldnt be a thing either (they date too and can also be attracted to men)

Well again Id ask if you think theres a difference between sexual attraction and attraction but you avoided that question like ten minutes ago. Yes or no, is it the same thing?

An male asexual dates a man, then a woman. Is he bi? He, like a pan-guy wasnt sexually attracted to their gender.
These posts together...maybe made this 'click'

So basically, pansexuality is being attracted to both sexes, but not being sexually attracted to them. So basically, pansexuals are bi asexuals, for want of a better term?!

Thats the only way this is making any sense to me tbh.

Bisexuals are 'sexually attracted' to either sex.
Pansexuals are 'attracted' to either sex

If this is not what you mean, then I have no idea why you keep bringing up the difference between attraction and sexual attraction.
If this is what you mean, then surely 'pansexual' is the same as 'asexual'?! As no sexual attraction is felt?

Vicky.

29-05-2018, 08:21 PM

And now I will not reply anymore, as I seem to be spamming a bit. But this thread is a pretty decent topic tbh. Wish I had actually been around for it :S

Maru

29-05-2018, 09:50 PM

@Vicky I was sold on my husband's personality before I was ever sold on his looks, not that his looks were bad. We just had a very strong mental connection very early on. He looks better the older he gets too, so a big plus. I think personality-based attraction is a precursor for me... especially when it comes to opening up... not that I have any sort of conditions that are trust-based, but that I am a private person person-to-person and I don't feel like just anyone can walk through that gate and gain admission... so it means something to me to give them that side of myself ...

Anyway, I think women's emotions tend to heavily play out who they are attracted to... so I think it's kind of ironic there is this pansexuality thing that is supposed to be based entirely on personality. We are different in how we are attracted to someone, there has to be more emotional processes there flowing... sometimes that is quick, sometimes not... men on the other hand, can be turned on simply by how someone walks or carries themselves, their specific physical assets, etc... not saying that doesn't happen with women either, but there has to be an emotional component I think for that to even be the case. I.e. they associate that movement with some other romantic drama in their head, etc... us women have a lot of fun fun pictures in our head, whereas men just love "eye candy"...

While I think vaginas are prettier (aesthetically more pleasing) than peni... most of the time... I also think that peni are more attractive and more interesting, because 1) they has a very fun shape, 2) masculinity and 3) the more "aggressive" aspects of their genitalia versus our own other more abstract reasons... women do tend to look better.. but again, men are more interesting and keep my attention. It's that thrill of the contrasts between both sexes as you say...

I'm not bisexual Vicky, but I think women would be a lot better at sex with other women more times than not. Just because they already know what we like. I have known from talking to other women about what we like, watching porn, etc ... It's funny how we're both like "No, that doesn't work at all... silly men"... Because we know there is emotional complexity there too and we are equipped, biologically I believe, to deal with those complexities...

I think arousal works differently for men, isn't a flip a switch as it feels like it is with men sometimes... I think that can be a curse for women at times... especially when the chemistry is not as strong, after a day of dealing with the kids and other shenanigans... men are not as intuitive in that area and kind of have to learn on their own how those elements of emotional foreplay play into what interests versus what actually arouses us... because sometimes those things are different... and a man who is like that by default and skillful with it, that's quite a rarity... but then the flip side of this that "talent" can also be skillfully abused, since they know how to key into our inner "romantic narratives" so to speak to get the attention they want... and they can dettach emotionally very quickly... whereas with women, not so to easy shut off... ... (though men can be like this as well to a degree... and I imagine that is probably a curse). So while men have a peni that thinks for itself, being blue-balled sucks, etc... we have an emotional filter that never goes away and it's harder for us to make those feelings start once they've started... so in that way, we are emotionally blue-balled.

Anyway, because of these complexities... I don't think pansexuality is a t hing... also, there are like 50 different descriptors on the web, as I previously posted... so even if I bought that designation being important, someone else has their own definition... and I think that's a little bit too "convenient" for a designator...

Maru

29-05-2018, 09:52 PM

And now I will not reply anymore, as I seem to be spamming a bit. But this thread is a pretty decent topic tbh. Wish I had actually been around for it :S

As long as you are in SD and it's a brain dump, it's OK :love: Anyway, as I said in my quote in ML, just glad you are posting more outside of playing TiBB daycare attendant... :laugh:

Oliver_W

29-05-2018, 09:56 PM

If this is not what you mean, then I have no idea why you keep bringing up the difference between attraction and sexual attraction.
I don't get that either - I'd say "attraction" is an umbrella term, with "sexual attraction" and "personality attraction" both beneath it. I don't think a preference for one of these attractions affects what someone's sexuality is.

Anyway, I think women's emotions tend to heavily play out who they are attracted to... so I think it's kind of ironic there is this pansexuality thing that is supposed to be based entirely on personality. We are different in how we are attracted to someone, there has to be more emotional processes there flowing... sometimes that is quick, sometimes not... men on the other hand, can be turned on simply by how someone walks or carries themselves, their specific physical assets, etc... not saying that doesn't happen with women either, but there has to be an emotional component I think for that to even be the case. I.e. they associate that movement with some other romantic drama in their head, etc... us women have a lot of fun fun pictures in our head, whereas men just love "eye candy"...
I once saw a youtube conversation between Blaire White and Theryn Meyer - both are male transwomen. Their conversation included how their attractions changed while they were on hormones, and they both said they value personalities more since they transitioned, and that they both can still get boners "as long as the candles are all lit."

Maru

29-05-2018, 10:05 PM

I don't get that either - I'd say "attraction" is an umbrella term, with "sexual attraction" and "personality attraction" both beneath it. I don't think a preference for one of these attractions affects what someone's sexuality is.

I once saw a youtube conversation between Blaire White and Theryn Meyer - both are male transwomen. Their conversation included how their attractions changed while they were on hormones, and they both said they value personalities more since they transitioned, and that they both can still get boners "as long as the candles are all lit."

:joker: What does that even mean?... I love Blaire.

Edit: Oh, kind of like "checks all my boxes"...

Withano

30-05-2018, 12:09 AM

These posts together...maybe made this 'click'

So basically, pansexuality is being attracted to both sexes, but not being sexually attracted to them. So basically, pansexuals are bi asexuals, for want of a better term?!

Thats the only way this is making any sense to me tbh.

Bisexuals are 'sexually attracted' to either sex.
Pansexuals are 'attracted' to either sex

If this is not what you mean, then I have no idea why you keep bringing up the difference between attraction and sexual attraction.
If this is what you mean, then surely 'pansexual' is the same as 'asexual'?! As no sexual attraction is felt?

Not really the line I was on

Asexuals - zero sexual attraction at all times, but can feel attraction, so will date those they become attracted to

Pansexuals - can feel attraction, which can develop into sexual attraction, but only ever in that order

Bisexuals (and heterosexuals and homosexuals) - can feel sexual attraction before any other form of attraction, that doesnt mean they are incapable of other types of attraction, and doesnt mean they act on their sexual attraction before other forms of attraction even if it does come first. But sexual attraction to people for the way they look is somethig that pans wont experience ever.

Im trying to remember my summary a while back cos i cba to multiquote

Sexual attraction to gender A=no, P=no, B=yes
Sexual attraction to personality A=no, P=yes, B=yes
Attraction to people A=yes*, P=yes, B=yes

*there are some aromantic asexuals, but for the purposes of trying to make this clearer...!

Withano

30-05-2018, 12:15 AM

I dont know where I stand on the ‘there should be 4 sexualities! Vs there should be 4000000 sexualities’. I think they’re both true. It is a huge spectrum of everything to ever exist really. But, if we can divide that into 4, thatll save some time.

Umbrella terms are useful, but not incredibly descriptive.

It shouldnt matter too much either way, but if somebody wants to identify as literally anything, then why would we take their comfort away from them?

user104658

30-05-2018, 06:52 AM

It shouldnt matter too much either way, but if somebody wants to identify as literally anything, then why would we take their comfort away from them?

I agree with that in principle but only in the sense that people can personally identify as whatever they want to identify and perhaps at most have an expectation that their nearest and dearest will take the time to understand the intricacies of that.

The problems are not with how someone wants to live their personal life, though, the problem lies in there being an expectation that everyone else / the whole world en masse must both a) accept the existence of and definition of every descriptor, and keep up to date with every new descriptor as it comes into usage, even if it is not an area that has any bearing at all on their day to day life and also b) accurately remember the personally chosen identities of every single person they ever encounter, with a failure to do so being "offensive".

Or in other words... Yes, it's fine for any individual to live how that individual wants to, so long as they remember that other people are not just actors on their own personal stage and beyond not being deliberately aggressive or offensive, they must manage and limit their expectations of people.

Expecting a layperson to understand and be supportive of pansexuality when a brief bit of googling demonstrates that there isn't even concensus amongst pansexuals on what pansexuality actually is... For example. I mean, you're pretty adamant about your definition of it Withano, but googling immediately brings up several aspects of your description under the heading "myths about pansexuality!", in articles written by self identified pansexuals, so...

bots

30-05-2018, 07:35 AM

I agree with that in principle but only in the sense that people can personally identify as whatever they want to identify and perhaps at most have an expectation that their nearest and dearest will take the time to understand the intricacies of that.

The problems are not with how someone wants to live their personal life, though, the problem lies in there being an expectation that everyone else / the whole world en masse must both a) accept the existence of and definition of every descriptor, and keep up to date with every new descriptor as it comes into usage, even if it is not an area that has any bearing at all on their day to day life and also b) accurately remember the personally chosen identities of every single person they ever encounter, with a failure to do so being "offensive".

Or in other words... Yes, it's fine for any individual to live how that individual wants to, so long as they remember that other people are not just actors on their own personal stage and beyond not being deliberately aggressive or offensive, they must manage and limit their expectations of people.

Expecting a layperson to understand and be supportive of pansexuality when a brief bit of googling demonstrates that there isn't even concensus amongst pansexuals on what pansexuality actually is... For example. I mean, you're pretty adamant about your definition of it Withano, but googling immediately brings up several aspects of your description under the heading "myths about pansexuality!", in articles written by self identified pansexuals, so...

that's it in a nutshell. The other thing is with the generation of each new label, it reinforces the PC gone mad narrative.

kirklancaster

30-05-2018, 08:54 AM

that's it in a nutshell. The other thing is with the generation of each new label, it reinforces the PC gone mad narrative.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: ABSOLUTELY it does.

Niamh.

30-05-2018, 09:08 AM

user104658

30-05-2018, 09:08 AM

that's it in a nutshell. The other thing is with the generation of each new label, it reinforces the PC gone mad narrative.

It literally pushes people over the edge :shrug:. I consider myself fairly supportive of self-IS and of people just being whatever they want to be. It's no one's business and (despite hysterical claims to the contrary) it really is very unlikely to do anyone any harm... but the endless jargon :umm2:.

It's like,

*NEW TERM*
"OK, that makes sense."

*NEW TERM*
"Yeah that clears thing up a bit more"

*NEW TERM*
"Sure, OK"

*NEW TERM"
"...fine..."

*NEW TERM"
"Alright, come on everyone..."

*NEW TERM*
"Another??"

*NEW TERM*
"But now I've forgotten the last two!"

*NEEEW TERM!!"
"OK enough! Just stop it!"

*NEW TERM NEW TERM NEW TERM*

DMh5rU8B81Y

Niamh.

30-05-2018, 09:11 AM

It literally pushes people over the edge :shrug:. I consider myself fairly supportive of self-IS and of people just being whatever they want to be. It's no one's business and (despite hysterical claims to the contrary) it really is very unlikely to do anyone any harm... but the endless jargon :umm2:.

It's like,

*NEW TERM*
"OK, that makes sense."

*NEW TERM*
"Yeah that clears thing up a bit more"

*NEW TERM*
"Sure, OK"

*NEW TERM"
"...fine..."

*NEW TERM"
"Alright, come on everyone..."

*NEW TERM*
"Another??"

*NEW TERM*
"But now I've forgotten the last two!"

*NEEEW TERM!!"
"OK enough! Just stop it!"

*NEW TERM NEW TERM NEW TERM*

DMh5rU8B81Y

:laugh2:

That's my favourite scene in the movie, me and Gav still do this sometimes :laugh:

user104658

30-05-2018, 09:14 AM

:laugh2:

That's my favourite scene in the movie, me and Gav still do this sometimes :laugh:

It's bizarre how well it actually fits with the concept of people getting impatient with "PC stuff"! Like at first they're happily engaging out of choice, and then they're being polite, and then getting annoyed, and then insulting, and then he loses it and trashes the thing :joker:.

Brillopad

30-05-2018, 09:30 AM

:clap1::clap1::clap1: ABSOLUTELY it does.

Seconded! At this Rate PC is going to go down as the biggest joke in history and all those that bought into it!

GoldHeart

30-05-2018, 11:21 AM

The term keeps changing

I originally thought pansexual meant just liking the person for their personality and more of a companionship thing :conf:

But now its become a sexual thing like the rest of the jargon nonsensical alphabet labels.

And now when people say pansexual they mean they date and sleep with men,women & trans .

Can't the LGBT just stick with LGBT rather than add extra ridiculous letters that look like a mental drunken recite of the aphabet :bored: .

user104658

30-05-2018, 11:24 AM

Can't the LGBT just stick with LGBT rather than add extra ridiculous letters that look like a mental drunken recite of the aphabet :bored: .

I think LGBT+ was totally fine personally... were some people just like "HEY I am offended about just being part of the +!"?

GoldHeart

30-05-2018, 11:37 AM

I think LGBT+ was totally fine personally... were some people just like "HEY I am offended about just being part of the +!"?

There was a BBC3 program about the whole long alphabet, and people apart of the LGBT community were puzzled & confused themselves at what these extra letters mean:facepalm: .

It's something like LGBTQQAAII what the hell is this ??? :crazy:
Where did all those ridiculous letters come from ??, they might as well add Hetro / straight to the list jargon haha seen as they've added everything else .

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 11:47 AM

GoldHeart

30-05-2018, 11:56 AM

One of the letters stands for allies. So yes, straight people are now included in the LGBT alphabet soup.

Even asexual I don't understand tbh, as noone is ever going to be discriminated against for not feeling sexual attraction. Any more than 'allies' are going to suffer discrimination for being..allies

Yeah now I remember that's it Allies omg :bored:
And yeah Asexual isn't interested in anything, even intersex is on the alphabet list when people are born with 2 body private parts :facepalm:

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 12:03 PM

There are varying degrees of intersex, I can see how people could be discriminated against for that. However, LGB was about sexuality, not every single person who can face discrimination. Adding more and more letters, to me, waters down the cause. But stonewall added T because they had done pretty much all campaigning they can do for LGB people after achieving equal marriage, then they widened 'T' to include crossdressers and such, rather than just transsexual people. Since adding T, they have shat all over LGB (especially L) people too. Tis a sorry state of affairs.

Withano

30-05-2018, 12:36 PM

One of the letters stands for allies. So yes, straight people are now included in the LGBT alphabet soup.

Even asexual I don't understand tbh, as noone is ever going to be discriminated against for not feeling sexual attraction. Any more than 'allies' are going to suffer discrimination for being..allies

I think people would use ‘LGBT’ more regularly when they’re discussing discriminatory issues, anduse LGBTQQIAAP when they’re discussing the community and inclusivity.

LGBT is still a phrase that gets used. The rest of the letters are usually used for different reasons.

Tom4784

30-05-2018, 12:46 PM

Denver

30-05-2018, 12:49 PM

So people saying Bisexuals go for personality over looks

When you go out and have a one night stand do you spend weeks getting to know thoer personality first?

bots

30-05-2018, 12:52 PM

The full LGBT does annoy to no end because most of it is so pointless. A lot of the letters are redundant and having 'Ally' be apart of it is just pandering to straight people to include them in something that ultimately isn't about them.

I support civil rights movements and groups regarding race but, as a white person, for example I can't be apart of Black Live Matter as much as a black person can because while I can do what I can to support the cause, I'm not a victim of that particular type of prejudice. I can call for change, I can support movements but to demand recognition for it wouldn't be right.

Allies are valuable but I don't really agree with putting an A in the LGBT name just for them.

i think extending lgbt dilutes the cause. If it is extended to include all sorts, then the more inclusive it becomes, the less people will believe they have valid issues. How could a group that all encompassing possibly need support

In my opinion LGBT was making good ground and with all the additions its become a laughing stock

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 12:55 PM

So people saying Bisexuals go for personality over looks

When you go out and have a one night stand do you spend weeks getting to know thoer personality first?

Are you saying pansexual people never ever have one night stands?

I can do one night stands, or I used to. However, when actually looking for a relationship, of course I value personality more. I can be physically attracted to someone enough to shag them, but beyond one night, I want more than looking pretty tbh. And a bad personality can turn me off someone quickly. Same as a few times, someone I have found not attractive at all when meeting them, I have grown to fancy like mad after getting to know them. I think this is surely true of most people?!

So basically, pansexuals never ever have a sexual relationship until they know all aspects of a persons personality?

Jessica.

30-05-2018, 02:30 PM

I thought the label for that was 'aromantic'

Seems some labels just mean the same thing? Like pan and bi I guess.

No because you are romantic once you are in the relationship.

Tom4784

30-05-2018, 02:47 PM

So people saying Bisexuals go for personality over looks

When you go out and have a one night stand do you spend weeks getting to know thoer personality first?

This is why I think pansexuals are just bisexuals who don't want the label. You are basically slutshaming bi people to make pansexuality sound more legitimate.

Withano

30-05-2018, 03:28 PM

This is why I think pansexuals are just bisexuals who don't want the label. You are basically slutshaming bi people to make pansexuality sound more legitimate.

I disagree, hetero and homosexuals have one night stands too, they do it because they can be sexually attracted to men or women or both in a physical way. Pansexuals do not experience physical sexual attraction, so would be unlikely to have a one night stand.

(based on sexual attraction anyway, im sure it still happens out of loneliness, intimacy, boredom, drunkeness etc).

Niamh.

30-05-2018, 03:32 PM

No because you are romantic once you are in the relationship.

Most people are only romantic when they're in relationships though :suspect:

Niamh.

30-05-2018, 03:33 PM

I disagree, hetero and homosexuals have one night stands too, they do it because they can be sexually attracted to men or women or both in a physical way. Pansexuals do not experience physical sexual attraction, so would be unlikely to have a one night stand.

(based on sexual attraction anyway, im sure it still happens out of loneliness, intimacy, boredom, drunkeness etc).

I was going to say most times One Night Stands happen because you're drunk lbh

kirklancaster

30-05-2018, 03:43 PM

This is why I think pansexuals are just bisexuals who don't want the label. You are basically slutshaming bi people to make pansexuality sound more legitimate.

Seriously, I think that ^THIS so accurately and succinctly sums up this issue. No more to be said, really.

In my opinion.

Maru

30-05-2018, 04:12 PM

Panfreaking-tastic

kirklancaster

30-05-2018, 04:14 PM

Panfreaking-tastic

:laugh: I wonder if this issue is being debated in monasteries among Friars? :hee:

Denver

30-05-2018, 04:15 PM

Are you saying pansexual people never ever have one night stands?

I can do one night stands, or I used to. However, when actually looking for a relationship, of course I value personality more. I can be physically attracted to someone enough to shag them, but beyond one night, I want more than looking pretty tbh. And a bad personality can turn me off someone quickly. Same as a few times, someone I have found not attractive at all when meeting them, I have grown to fancy like mad after getting to know them. I think this is surely true of most people?!

So basically, pansexuals never ever have a sexual relationship until they know all aspects of a persons personality?
I would never sleep with someone I didn't know.

And as yes pansexual do have sex but only with people they get to know and learn about not some random in the street

Oliver_W

30-05-2018, 04:17 PM

I disagree, hetero and homosexuals have one night stands too, they do it because they can be sexually attracted to men or women or both in a physical way. Pansexuals do not experience physical sexual attraction, so would be unlikely to have a one night stand.

(based on sexual attraction anyway, im sure it still happens out of loneliness, intimacy, boredom, drunkeness etc).

I'm not really into one night stands, but I feel sexual attraction toward both genders.

user104658

30-05-2018, 04:28 PM

I would never sleep with someone I didn't know.

But can we ever truly know anyone, Adam :worry:

Tom4784

30-05-2018, 04:33 PM

I would never sleep with someone I didn't know.

And as yes pansexual do have sex but only with people they get to know and learn about not some random in the street

And thats the same for most people of any orientation.

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 05:15 PM

I'm not really into one night stands, but I feel sexual attraction toward both genders.

But thats because you are attracted TO genders! :fist:

Denver

30-05-2018, 05:18 PM

And thats the same for most people of any orientation.

No because I would shag the 1st person to buy me a drink in the club

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 05:19 PM

I would never sleep with someone I didn't know.

And as yes pansexual do have sex but only with people they get to know and learn about not some random in the street

But withano just said

Pansexuals do not experience physical sexual attraction, so would be unlikely to have a one night stand.

(based on sexual attraction anyway, im sure it still happens out of loneliness, intimacy, boredom, drunkeness etc).

Unlikely.

Well..most heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual people would be 'unlikely' to have a one night stand, and even more unlikely if you took alcohol, loneliness, intimacy, boredom and such out of the equation.

This thread is making my head hurt. I still see no difference between bisexual and pansexual except for people trying to make out that bisexual people are just wanton sluts*. Or transphobic (not on here, in general..this is the main thing that is thrown at those who dare to define themselves as bi instead of pan)

*I think theres nothing wrong with multiple sexual partners, but this is the best way of saying this tbh

Withano

30-05-2018, 05:22 PM

But withano just said

Unlikely.

Well..most heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual people would be 'unlikely' to have a one night stand, and even more unlikely if you took alcohol, loneliness, intimacy, boredom and such out of the equation.

This thread is making my head hurt. I still see no difference between bisexual and pansexual except for people trying to make out that bisexual people are just wanton sluts*. Or transphobic (not on here, in general..this is the main thing that is thrown at those who dare to define themselves as bi instead of pan)

*I think theres nothing wrong with multiple sexual partners, but this is the best way of saying this tbh

The main difference is physical, raw sexual attraction to the male or female entity

And sexual attraction to the personality that may be within any entity

They can both be true for bi people, only one is true for pan people.

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 05:33 PM

The main difference is physical, raw sexual attraction to the male or female entity

And sexual attraction to the personality that may be within any entity

They can both be true for bi people, only one is true for pan people.

OK. I can understand that, I think. I CAN be attracted to someone on looks alone..as I suspect pretty much anyone who has ever had a crush on a celebrity or something feels. However, would this not mean, that the fact that my physical attraction changes as I learn personalities, make me pan sometimes, and bi the rest of the time? Like, literally people stop even looking physically attractive to me once I learn their personalities if they are bad and it sometimes gets to the stage where I cannot understand how I ever thought they were attractive to begin with? Ontop of this, no matter how physically attractive a person was, I would never even entertain the idea of a sober one night stand when we had not ever spoke.

And on the flipside, those I feel no attraction to at all who I fancy more and more, and it gets to the stage where I cannot imagine how I didn't fancy them at all to begin with? Or, I can start fancying them as I get to know them, and then it turns out that they do have aspects of their personality that i do not like...and they start losing it all..

Maybe it turns out I actually AM pan, rather than bi. Like I discovered that I was actually apparently A-gender, 'gender non-conforming' AND 'non-binary' and possibly more when I didn't know this too :S

Else all these labels would fit the huge majority of people most of the time too. Thats an option. Where homo, hetero, bi or asexual would not fit near all people.

user104658

30-05-2018, 05:35 PM

The main difference is physical, raw sexual attraction to the male or female entity

Withano I'm just going to be blunt at this point and say that I don't think you have a full understanding of "the norm" when it comes to sexuality. This is massively oversimplified, unless a huge proportion (the majority, I would hazard a guess) of the human race are in fact pansexual.

Withano

30-05-2018, 05:41 PM

Else all these labels would fit the huge majority of people most of the time too. Thats an option. Where homo, hetero, bi or asexual would not fit near all people.

I don’t think its my place to define you, go with whatever works for you.. There probably is a comfortable place in the middle of bi and pan, I don’t know if there is a word for this yet!

Bi and pan have several similarities and I guess thats what made this thread interesting, but there are some differences too, which seemed to have been skirted over in the thread which I find a bit of a shame.

Personally I think it exists. Everything exists. Some guy out there right now is sexually attracted to their car and nothing else, why is it beyond the realms of possibility that some other guy is sexually attracted to personality and nothing else?

Completely agree with the para that I left, and thats why I dont care too much about the ‘alphabet soup’ that others have a problem with... millions of sexualities probably exist, we’ve probably only just got to the first stage of exploring them.

Withano

30-05-2018, 05:44 PM

Withano I'm just going to be blunt at this point and say that I don't think you have a full understanding of "the norm" when it comes to sexuality. This is massively oversimplified, unless a huge proportion (the majority, I would hazard a guess) of the human race are in fact pansexual.

I’m aware of that ts. We’re on page 12, and still discussing what it means, theres no point over complicating it, when we havent really jumped the first hurdle yet. Bisexuality can be discribed in a novel. I dont think ive described it in over 2 sentences yet. Im really not claiming everything im saying is the full story.

Edit actually i think you misunderstood my post. The bit you left was me describing an attribute of bi people, not pan people, and not both groups.

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 05:49 PM

I don’t think its my place to define you, go with whatever works for you.. There probably is a comfortable place in the middle of bi and pan, I don’t know if there is a word for this yet!

Yes, more labels is just whats needed :D I guess I am bipansexual. As is near every other 'mere' bisexual person, in reality.

Bi and pan have several similarities and I guess thats what made this thread interesting, but there are some differences too, which seemed to have been skirted over in the thread which I find a bit of a shame.

I am not trying to skirt over any differences, I am literally not understanding the differences people are claiming that there is! It is really coming down to...bi people would **** anything that was pretty, where pan people would not and actually care about the personality too. Which is clearly bonkers. And plays into some offensive stereotypes too actually.

Personally I think it exists. Everything exists. Some guy out there right now is sexually attracted to their car and nothing else, why is it beyond the realms of possibility that some other guy is sexually attracted to personality and nothing else?

But..is it a sexuality? The guy who is attracted to his car has not made up carsexuality. That I am aware of anyway

I don;t think anyone is disputing that some people find personality more important than anything else, or even the only thing that attracts them. But if it genuinely is personality and you would sleep with either sex, then you are bi. Not a totally different sexuality..surely...

It makes as much sense as claiming that the guy who only ever shags/fancies brunette women is a different sexuality to other heterosexual men. To me

Withano

30-05-2018, 05:58 PM

I am not trying to skirt over any differences, I am literally not understanding the differences people are claiming that there is! It is really coming down to...bi people would **** anything that was pretty, where pan people would not and actually care about the personality too. Which is clearly bonkers. And plays into some offensive stereotypes too actually.

Well, Id argue that anybody who says something like this is biphobic(?) (save me from the anti-pc brigade, theyre not gonna like my use of that word at all). That isnt what it means to be bi, and anybody that claims it is, is a daft tit.

Jessica.

30-05-2018, 05:59 PM

Most people are only romantic when they're in relationships though :suspect:

Romantic means being okay with hugs, kisses etc.. Like general dating stuff, before the official boyfriend/girlfriend labels. Not what you're thinking of.

Redway

30-05-2018, 06:00 PM

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 06:00 PM

Well, Id argue that anybody who says something like this is biphobic(?) (save me from the anti-pc brigade, theyre not gonna like my use of that word at all). That isnt what it means to be bi, and anybody that claims it is, is a daft tit.

But..thats how your posts are coming across to me? All of this, bi people its about raw sexual attraction, pan people its about the mind, and such. Like, I was paraphrasing your very own posts (and Adams actually)

And sorry for the huge edit just before :laugh: I make a habit of that, when I really shouldn't

Withano

30-05-2018, 06:03 PM

But..thats how your posts are coming across to me? All of this, bi people its about raw sexual attraction, pan people its about the mind, and such. Like, I was paraphrasing your very own posts (and Adams actually)

And sorry for the huge edit just before :laugh: I make a habit of that, when I really shouldn't

I dont think ive said that at all. Bi people can be sexually attracted to people, pan people can not

Bi people can be sexually attracted to personality, pan people can too

There is a very key similarity, and a very key difference between the two sexualities.

Maru

30-05-2018, 06:10 PM

I'm becoming very -phobic to the constant tossing of phobias on message boards... because this commentary doesn't occur to most folk in real life unless they're a committed member of those subculture(s)... Anyway, I remember when homophobia used to basically mean you were afraid of being gay or being considered gay and the LGBT used to not be so authoritative... now it's just a PC way of calling everyone a jerk for not sharing the same belief system. A complete contrast to the sense of compassionate acceptance and broader sense of respect we grew up on within that movement. The new(er) rhetoric is a complete bait & switch...

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 06:12 PM

I dont think ive said that at all. Bi people can be sexually attracted to people, pan people can not

Bi people can be sexually attracted to personality, pan people can too

There is a very key similarity, and a very key difference between the two sexualities.

But a personality is not its own entity. So being attracted to a personality is still being attracted to a person? Again, my head hurts here :laugh:

Am not trying to be funny or anything incase thats coming across that way. Just, I am not understanding this AT ALL and am actually finding many of the posts trying to explain the difference to be a bit offensive (though its noones right not to be offended..just pointing out that it IS actually coming across as quite biphobic to me..but meh) and very very rooted in stereotypes. Like, do you think gay people would be happy if someone came out with a new word that meant 'gay but cares about personality' and decided that homosexuality was actually about raw sexual attraction..and as a side effect, basically promiscuity. Those who stuck to 'gay' did not care about personality, some may care but its mainly about the 'sexual attraction' than forming actual bonds, and such? Of course they would not. But its fine to say this about bi people, because...? IDK. Apparently theres a reason.

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 06:13 PM

Aha cross post with maru there :laugh:

Alf

30-05-2018, 06:14 PM

Withano

30-05-2018, 06:15 PM

But a personality is not its own entity. So being attracted to a personality is still being attracted to a person? Again, my head hurts here :laugh:

Am not trying to be funny or anything incase thats coming across that way. Just, I am not understanding this AT ALL and am actually finding many of the posts trying to explain the difference to be a bit offensive (though its noones right not to be offended..just pointing out that it IS actually coming across as quite biphobic to me..but meh) and very very rooted in stereotypes. Like, do you think gay people would be happy if someone came out with a new word that meant 'gay but cares about personality' and decided that homosexuality was actually about raw sexual attraction..and as a side effect, basically promiscuity. Those who stuck to 'gay' did not care about personality, some may care but its mainly about the 'sexual attraction' than forming actual bonds, and such? Of course they would not. But its fine to say this about bi people, because...? IDK. Apparently theres a reason.

Well if you are exclusively attracted to men, like a gay guy, then that would imply that youre not exclusively attracted to personality like a pan guy.

Being attracted to men and personality would make you gay in the same way that being attracted to men women and personality would make you bi.

There difference with pan is not being attracted to men, women, or anything in between.

I still think youre ignoring the differences vicky.

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 06:17 PM

I genuinely am not understanding the differences, rather than ignoring them. Even moreso when you add in previous comments such as they would usually not have a one night stand, unless alcohol, loneliness, etc were involved. thats true of most people in general.

Maru

30-05-2018, 06:18 PM

Aha cross post with maru there :laugh:

Team-posting :love:

Anyway, as I will repeat again... pan- means "all"... where in the word structure does it say pan = personality? I'm telling you... there's been a bait & switch... if there's some reasoning to that, then I will retract.

But as it stands, it appears this word doesn't mean anything really, unless you go along with the word-form... maybe it means those folk are attracted to everything (including animals, inanimate objects, etc)... because that's the only way -pan/"all" works and is a definition I've heard... maybe that didn't catch on the way they'd hoped and so somebody took pansexual and gave it a more creative definition..., "oh, I'm going to give myself a unique identifier to make myself sound more inclusive and gender-blind"... Dezzy is right.

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 06:19 PM

Dezzy is right.

Is it that time of year already?! :tongue:

Maru

30-05-2018, 06:20 PM

Is it that time of year already?! :tongue:

Well it is a full moon :laugh:

https://media.giphy.com/media/6lNSEhgiVSizu/giphy.gif

user104658

30-05-2018, 06:23 PM

I dont think ive said that at all. Bi people can be sexually attracted to people, pan people can not

Bi people can be sexually attracted to personality, pan people can too

There is a very key similarity, and a very key difference between the two sexualities.But it's not a different sexuality - it's just a bi person who isn't attracted to people if they aren't attracted to their personality?

This is what I mean about thinking you might be hugely oversimplifying the "spectrum" if you will of heterosexuality. HUGE numbers of heterosexual men and women (and homosexual too I would imagine) do NOT experience "raw physical sexual attraction" that isn't based primarily in personality. It is the primary aspect of all sexuality.

I'm beginning to wonder if the roots of "pansexual ideology" comes from a basic misunderstanding of what constitutes "normal" hetero, homo and bisexuality... People noticing that they are primarily attracted to personality and assuming that this makes them "totally different" from most people when it just... Doesn't? They've just misinterpreted or incorrectly assumed how it works for others? Perhaps having seen the, admittedly very VISIBLE, section of society that engages in casual sex and not realising that those people are actually a relatively small minority?

Which really then all just comes back to tribalism, once again. There seems to be a very real social desire for people to be part of a "special subset of people", above and beyond the pursuit of individuality even, that I really don't hugely understand. Being able to say "I am an X/Y/Z, this person here is just like me, these other people over here are NOTHING like me" has become such a core part of people's basic sense of self... I suppose there must be reasons for that.

Maru

30-05-2018, 06:34 PM

But it's not a different sexuality - it's just a bi person who isn't attracted to people if they aren't attracted to their personality?

This is what I mean about thinking you might be hugely oversimplifying the "spectrum" if you will of heterosexuality. HUGE numbers of heterosexual men and women (and homosexual too I would imagine) do NOT experience "raw physical sexual attraction" that isn't based primarily in personality. It is the primary aspect of all sexuality.

I'm beginning to wonder if the roots of "pansexual ideology" comes from a basic misunderstanding of what constitutes "normal" hetero, homo and bisexuality... People noticing that they are primarily attracted to personality and assuming that this makes them "totally different" from most people when it just... Doesn't? They've just misinterpreted or incorrectly assumed how it works for others? Perhaps having seen the, admittedly very VISIBLE, section of society that engages in casual sex and not realising that those people are actually a relatively small minority?

Which really then all just comes back to tribalism, once again. There seems to be a very real social desire for people to be part of a "special subset of people", above and beyond the pursuit of individuality even, that I really don't hugely understand. Being able to say "I am an X/Y/Z, this person here is just like me, these other people over here are NOTHING like me" has become such a core part of people's basic sense of self... I suppose there must be reasons for that.

This is just me, and this is obviously anecdotal... but it just seems to me that the only folk who strive for these unique identifiers are white middle-class folk who aren't a super-minority, (female is not a minority, we are 50% of the general pop)... since group identifiers are trendy... pansexy can be like a group identifier... because gay/bi isn't that trendy anymore... and they're not trans... so pansexy is the next best thing short of pulling a Rachel Dolezal and transitioning to a black person.

I've maybe heard one pansexual person who is an actual minority. Most others are white folk who are trying to show how inclusive they are by adopting one of the new-fangled "qualifiers" from the LGBT dictionary.

The other logic behind this... if you can pull people away from "traditional"/well-accepted labels... more-over, encourage people to use fancier definitions or special syntax/acronyms or wording that comes from that movement... then they can essentially bake-in their more "out there" rhetoric into the English language... so easier to "soft-convert" people over to their ideology.

Vicky.

30-05-2018, 06:35 PM

You very very rarely see anyone over a certain age labelling themselves with all of these things. I know that comes across as really ageist, and maybe it is but its something I have noticed a lot. Like, one youngster I know has so many labels when she gets going you would think shes bloody Daenerys Targaryen. And loads of youngsters I know have many labels..though not quite to that extent.

Niamh.

30-05-2018, 06:41 PM

Romantic means being okay with hugs, kisses etc.. Like general dating stuff, before the official boyfriend/girlfriend labels. Not what you're thinking of.I know what romantic means [emoji23]

Brillopad

30-05-2018, 06:47 PM

This is just me, and this is obviously anecdotal... but it just seems to me that the only folk who strive for these unique identifiers are white middle-class folk who aren't a super-minority, (female is not a minority, we are 50% of the general pop)... since group identifiers are trendy... pansexy can be like a group identifier... because gay/bi isn't that trendy anymore... and they're not trans... so pansexy is the next best thing short of pulling a Rachel Dolezal and transitioning to a black person.

I've maybe heard one pansexual person who is an actual minority. Most others are white folk who are trying to show how inclusive they are by adopting one of the new-fangled "qualifiers" from the LGBT dictionary.

The other logic behind this... if you can pull people away from "traditional"/well-accepted labels... more-over, encourage people to use fancier definitions or special syntax/acronyms or wording that comes from that movement... then they can essentially bake-in their more "out there" rhetoric into the English language... so easier to "soft-convert" people over to their ideology.

The whole thing is downright manipulative and deceitful in my opinion and just what I believe we have come to expect from PC.

Maru

30-05-2018, 06:48 PM

I'm very make-up-a-word-phobic, for lack of a better word (pun unintended), I think... because I rely too much on an actual dictionary (it's like my bible) and am not open to butchering/modifying our nation's official language... so by being so strict and sticking so close to traditional English... I am actually alienating foreigners from our general culture because I am not open to allowing just any random folk to adequately "express themselves" and choose how they "identify" with the way English word-forms are crafted and what grammar is appropriate...

...would be where this conversation would go if we were to follow the typical social justice thought-stream and its canon.

bots

30-05-2018, 06:49 PM

Maru

30-05-2018, 06:51 PM

When we signed up for Nielsen (that big company that tracks TV ratings and demographics with home metering) and they took down our individual demographics... they asked me what job I identified myself as having. FYI if you happen to read those stats...

user104658

30-05-2018, 06:57 PM

kirklancaster

30-05-2018, 09:23 PM

The whole thing is downright manipulative and deceitful in my opinion and just what I believe we have come to expect from PC.

:laugh: PC - Potty & Crackers. Pretentious Crap. Puzzling Crud.

Redway

31-05-2018, 08:28 AM

She did hit up on a good point in that video, that Pansexuals don't necessarily have to deal with the 'baggage' of being bi which I think is potentially a reason why people say they are pansexual, kinda like how some gay people will say they are bi because they don't want to admit they are gay.

The only differences between the two are perceived differences, not actual differences.

Did you just assume her gender?

bots

31-05-2018, 08:44 AM

The closest equivalent I can get to this and still understand it is by thinking of browsing the colour catalog and trying to choose a colour and shade.

We (mostly) all can identify green, blue, brown, black, white etc and then we can identify light blue, dark blue within that, but go to some of the more subtle shades and then it becomes much more difficult to identify. The colour catalogs have all sorts of descriptions, how many of those do people actually remember - unless they are particularly important to them - not many. Ask the average person on the street to identify harvest pink or autumn gold, and they wont have a clue. So, given that, how can the average person in the street be expected to identify anything other than the most basic of things, unless it is important to them and to most, it just isn't important.