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

Well it is a full moon :laugh:

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

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.

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.

I know what romantic means [emoji23]

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

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.

Says Vicky, warden of TiBB :laugh:

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...

Vicky gets her box;

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

Did you just assume her gender?

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.

I agree, I think that's a huge part of the issue with these gender / sexuality issues really. There are some people for whom these things make up a HUGE part of their life and their identity and so these things are at the forefront of their mind... and they make the mistake of assuming that because it is important to them it must be (or should be) important to everyone else.

Strong words from one of the most PC members on here.