Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammi
....hmmmm I just think that, that’s expanding it out a little too far TS...for the moment anyway because there is always going to be many factors which are individual to people in terms of ‘attraction’ that extend beyond ‘physical’...
...i’m a little bit Dezzy and a little bit Withano on this...(..Dezzano....?...)...I do feel that before ‘similarities’ are looked at in terms of umbrellas etc...differences first have to be recognised and acknowledged....(...my understanding has always been ...and thank you Jack for helping with that in some chats many tides ago that we had, you and I..  ...)...that for instance when we look at a visual, physical instinct attraction for instance...like say, looking at a pic of a celebrity and thinking...yeah that person is ‘hot’/attractive etc...it’s something that many can relate to, whatever their sexuality...a physical thing about someone that would instinctively attract the eye attention as it were..?....but not so for a pansexual person as ‘physical’ is not a factor at all in that initial thing...so basically there could never be an ‘initial thing’ I guess...it would be personality/character etc...(...and attributes of character would differ in each individual pansexual also, I would say...)...but the fundamental difference to be acknowledged is that a person’s character to whatever degree would have to be displayed/to be seen first...
...I do feel that ‘labelling’ can be so counter productive and many labels can create so much confusion as to ‘alienate and switch off’ as well for so many people...(..but as we seem to very much be in a labelling society’..)....it’s inevitable that people don’t want to be labelled incorrectly...and that for me is where it’s important to acknowledge differences in sexualities...before we can reach similarities that may bring it all to a less confusing place in terms of umbrellas branching out etc.... |
I agree with the labelling, and that's sort of what I'm trying to say, I guess. Sexuality is such a nuanced and complicated psychological thing for EVERY individual that it just doesn't really lend itself to categorisation as solidly as many people seem to think (or seem to wish?) it does. For example, speaking of physical attraction being a factor, this isn't a "yes/no" question... it matters entirely to some (very shallow) people, a lot to some people, somewhat to others, not much to others, hardly at all to some... not at all to some. It's an entire sliding scale, surely... at what point on that scale does a bisexual individual "suddenly" become pansexual?
Where has the idea that heterosexuality is "simple" come from, I suppose is my question? It isn't, it's infinitely complex, and entirely individual... literally no two people of any sexual persuasion have "identical" sexualities, and therefore, the labelling is of absolutely no utility in terms of personal identity. One's sexuality is what it is, and doesn't need to be labelled. So... with that being the case... the only point in labelling at all is as an indicator to potential partners. For that purpose, straight/gay/bi is all that's really needed. The idea that we have to add "pan" to indicate "open to trans" is sort of offensive, surely? All that really needs to be said on that is that it's a personal preference / philosophical issue... it doesn't need its own term... that's like saying we need terms for people who are/aren't open to relationships with fat people, or open to relationships with bald men.