FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
View Poll Results: ??????? | ||||||
Yes | 16 | 40.00% | ||||
|
||||||
No | 24 | 60.00% | ||||
|
||||||
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
21-05-2018, 07:11 AM | #126 | |||
|
||||
POW! BLAM!
|
Or maybe the "pan" person would just want basic friendship with the child, especially if they had similar interests in regards to videogames or whatever. Again, not something which needs a new label.
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 07:12 AM | #127 | ||
|
|||
-
|
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? |
||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 07:51 AM | #128 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
....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.... Last edited by Ammi; 21-05-2018 at 08:02 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 07:52 AM | #129 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
...in my head this all makes sense...but it is quite a complex thing...but of complete importance to so many people that their sexuality is understood.../...for its differences as well as its similarities....
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 07:55 AM | #130 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Do pansexuals have sex?
Cause the last time i checked you cant shag a personality! |
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 07:57 AM | #131 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
..yeah I do think pansexuality is a thing, did I say that...it may be a thing that can ...(...at some point...)...be snuggled under the umbrella of another thing...but surely the thing of its differences have to be understood and acknowledged first...that’s the thing...the thing I’m thinking atm...
....oh what a thing...etc... |
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 07:59 AM | #132 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 08:14 AM | #133 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts". Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003) .................................................. .. Press The Spoiler Button to See All My Songs Spoiler: |
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 08:29 AM | #134 | ||
|
|||
Stiff Member
|
I'm keeping an open mind on the whole thing
doesn't bother me how people want to id themselves |
||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 08:30 AM | #135 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
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. |
||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 08:34 AM | #136 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
Humans are predisposed to grouping and categorising for cognitive and linguistic purposes, that much is true. But when it comes to interpersonal relationships (be that with family, friends, potential partners or total strangers) I don't think it's ever particularly helpful or accurate. Last edited by Toy Soldier; 21-05-2018 at 08:34 AM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 08:34 AM | #137 | |||
|
||||
Zumi Zimi Zami
|
no, i don't even know what it is
__________________
Taking part in Strictly Jake's Tibb does Strictly Game. No.1 Fan of Queen Anastasia ''Nastia'' Stan!!!!!! |
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 08:41 AM | #138 | ||
|
|||
Stiff Member
|
Quote:
must say I haven't thought of that much but my gut instinct is not to see bi as transphobic anymore than homo is heterophobic I may be wrong, but I see bi as liking people with well-defined genders i.e they may be happy with a fully trasitioned trans but not with a trans half-way through a transition, whereas a pansexual doesn't give a hoot about such details so bi: male + female, pan: male, intersex, female correct me if I'm simplifying |
||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 08:43 AM | #139 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 08:45 AM | #140 | ||
|
|||
Stiff Member
|
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 08:47 AM | #141 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
Quote:
...and I do agree with ‘labels’ also, which I think I said...but I think that’s probably also a little bit of a ‘necessary phase in time’...because there is so much scope for openness about sexuality now, more so than any other time...so I think in time as well and with that understanding and acknowledgement of all of our differences, as it were...there will be less labelling as time goes by...as our ‘human understanding’ grows.... |
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 08:57 AM | #142 | |||
|
||||
POW! BLAM!
|
Nah, I don't think willingness to date traps really comes into it either. The Youtube Blaire White has said that all of her boyfriends had only been with biological women before her, and that they were able to get over the fact she has a dick. They don't need a special label, they're just straight guys who have an unusual girlfriend.
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 09:17 AM | #143 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 09:21 AM | #144 | ||
|
|||
Stiff Member
|
Quote:
In my book, pans would be happy with any shape or form of intersex. Your guy may be ok with a regular-looking chick with a dick, but what about an androgynous person who doesn't look like a conventional male or female? Also in your example, is he "overlooking" her dick or is he celebrating it? I.e does he make her tuck it or does he suck it? It may seem like an unnecessarily graphic detail at first, but to the guy it may mean a lot in terms of how he sees her. He may be dating her becuse the chick/dick combination is just perfect for him or he may be dating her despite the dick (attracted to the rest of her, dick seen as a unfortunate blemish on his perfect woman). |
||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 09:24 AM | #145 | ||
|
|||
-
|
I feel like the trans / intersex aspect is separate to base sexuality, is the thing. For example, some straight men are open to relationships with male to female transsexuals, others are not. The ones who are are no less straight?
|
||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 09:25 AM | #146 | ||
|
|||
Stiff Member
|
Quote:
I'd be interested in your reply to the rest of my post |
||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 09:28 AM | #147 | |||
|
||||
POW! BLAM!
|
Quote:
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 09:36 AM | #148 | |||
|
||||
I Love my brick
|
Quote:
__________________
Spoiler: |
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 09:43 AM | #149 | |||
|
||||
The voice of reason
|
I think a lot of people who go on about it are not getting any sex at all never mind panfecking sex
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-05-2018, 02:12 PM | #150 | ||
|
|||
-
|
I think tbh ingeneral there's plenty of intercourse going on but, it does sometimes occur to me that ANY label on sexuality is only relevant to single life... and also, that the importance of it all is amplified whilst single. When you're partnered up does any of it really matter all that much? But then I do think there's a general problem in some circles with people overemphasising the importance of sexual preference in their general concept of self. I'm not saying it isn't important, just that it should really be a relatively small component of a human being as a complete entity... and that very often people who DO make it the centrepiece of their existence can end up feeling a little bit empty later on.
Last edited by Toy Soldier; 21-05-2018 at 02:13 PM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
|
|