Dontgiveafucksexuals Fandom Members (aka Pansexual)

[Mentova]

Because there are a group of individuals who would like to define their sexuality with a certain term they feel is more appropriate. And then there is another group of people who feel like because they don't agree with it they have to point out why and say so over and over.

To be fair, I shouldn't even have started defending it to begin with. I got wrapped up in it too quickly as it were.

There's nothing wrong with people stating their personal opinion on this though. I don't think anyone is trying to say that people who identify as pansexual are wrong and bad. If they are saying that, then they're just assholes and should be ignored anyways :V

 

[RedSavage]

There's nothing wrong with people stating their personal opinion on this though. I don't think anyone is trying to say that people who identify as pansexual are wrong and bad. If they are saying that, then they're just assholes and should be ignored anyways :V

Point.

But as much as I didn't want to back into this corner yet again and reiterate it--it never was the fucking point of this thread. Ha. Like, I can't make this more clear. If I did, I would have made a thread called "Is Pansexuality Different From Bisexuality"---but I didn't. I offered a layman's example of the difference, said that it could be taken with a grain of salt or rejected, and that if people wanted to know more they could google that shit. Even if such a thread popped up, I wouldn't participate.

To boot, these arguments were driven into the ground until the point of bare boned semantics were reached. Where did we leave off? Oh, right, something about how people who identify as a third gender still qualify for the bisexual part because they are either "male" or "female" sexed and gender identity was a nonpoint--and that's a fuckton of argument I don't even want to touch. I don't agree with that statement. Pure and simple. This has been and will be from beginning to end an "agree to disagree" scenario.

Because this:

So bisexuality implies attraction to both physical sexes not gender identity.

Completely contradicts this:

Like my last partner, he is a straight male, and his girlfriend before me was MTF transgender and that didn't phase him at all.

So it's like---Jesus fucking christ. I literally cannot take one stance or the other on an argument I never wanted. Would it matter if I brought up genetically intersexed people? Would it matter if I brought up people who choose to appear neither male nor female? Should I point out the presumptuous nature of locking individuals to their biological sex to define their sexuality as thus? Would it matter if I posed the offensive implication that it is only straight for a male to be with a transgender if they've had surgery on their genitals?

No--no I don't. Because it's not one I care to follow. You may be only seeing one half of this argument--yours and mine. But you're completely forgetting the other five or so people each with their own unique angle on why I'm incorrect about pansexuality being a legitamte sexuality. You can't just say, "Well I thought this, this, this and that, yanno, just saying" and there not be an implicit "... Just saying, that I don't agree with you."

So yeah, it's just stating your opinion. So should I just bow out with "Well, I think your opinion is wrong." and come off like some holier than thou asshole, or do I try to rationally discuss a refute a viewpoint that no one here seems vaguely interested in changing? I tried the latter, and ended up getting hounded from five different angles from five different people who by their very nature were contradicting each other.What I should have done was ignored the comments and discussed the nature of pansexuality with those who seem interested.

Haha, woooo. I've officially taken this thing way too seriously.
I just wanted to see who all used Pansexual to describe themselves. That was all.
Instead I got a bunch of contradicting opinions on why it's the same as bisexuality, and a bunch of reasons why my views on how it's different are wrong.

At the very least, it's good work for the brain I suppose. I'm just glad I'm not taking this personally, and have reduced it to mere frustration over have gotten into a full blown debate from people all bandstanding their opinion from different angles while holding everything I say in complete context to no matter whom it was spoken.

 

[Mentova]

Point.

But as much as I didn't want to back into this corner yet again and reiterate it--it never was the fucking point of this thread. Ha. Like, I can't make this more clear. If I did, I would have made a thread called "Is Pansexuality Different From Bisexuality"---but I didn't. I offered a layman's example of the difference, said that it could be taken with a grain of salt or rejected, and that if people wanted to know more they could google that shit. Even if such a thread popped up, I wouldn't participate.

To boot, these arguments were driven into the ground until the point of bare boned semantics were reached. Where did we leave off? Oh, right, something about how people who identify as a third gender still qualify for the bisexual part because they are either "male" or "female" sexed and gender identity was a nonpoint--and that's a fuckton of argument I don't even want to touch. I don't agree with that statement. Pure and simple. This has been and will be from beginning to end an "agree to disagree" scenario.

Because this:




Completely contradicts this:



So it's like---Jesus fucking christ. I literally cannot take one stance or the other on an argument I never wanted. Would it matter if I brought up genetically intersexed people? Would it matter if I brought up people who choose to appear neither male nor female? Should I point out the presumptuous nature of locking individuals to their biological sex to define their sexuality as thus? Would it matter if I posed the offensive implication that it is only straight for a male to be with a transgender if they've had surgery on their genitals?

No--no I don't. Because it's not one I care to follow. You may be only seeing one half of this argument--yours and mine. But you're completely forgetting the other five or so people each with their own unique angle on why I'm incorrect about pansexuality being a legitamte sexuality. You can't just say, "Well I thought this, this, this and that, yanno, just saying" and there not be an implicit "... Just saying, that I don't agree with you."

So yeah, it's just stating your opinion. So should I just bow out with "Well, I think your opinion is wrong." and come off like some holier than thou asshole, or do I try to rationally discuss a refute a viewpoint that no one here seems vaguely interested in changing? I tried the latter, and ended up getting hounded from five different angles from five different people who by their very nature were contradicting each other.What I should have done was ignored the comments and discussed the nature of pansexuality with those who seem interested.

Haha, woooo. I've officially taken this thing way too seriously.
I just wanted to see who all used Pansexual to describe themselves. That was all.
Instead I got a bunch of contradicting opinions on why it's the same as bisexuality, and a bunch of reasons why my views on how it's different are wrong.

At the very least, it's good work for the brain I suppose. I'm just glad I'm not taking this personally, and have reduced it to mere frustration over have gotten into a full blown debate from people all bandstanding their opinion from different angles while holding everything I say in complete context to no matter whom it was spoken.

I'm not sure why you seem so upset about this since FAF has always been the kinda place where thread topics tend to drift around a bit, but I understand that you didn't intended for the discussion to go this way. Out of respect for that, I won't continue the discussion.

 

[RedSavage]

I'm not sure why you seem so upset about this since FAF has always been the kinda place where thread topics tend to drift around a bit, but I understand that you didn't intended for the discussion to go this way. Out of respect for that, I won't continue the discussion.

Meehhhhhh now I feel like... I'm being naive. That's hardly what I wanted. Yes, I expected it, but I severely underestimated the amount of...defending I would have to do. I mean, between the completely contradicting statements you and JTrekkie put forth, I'm boggled as to how to argue it on all these different turfs.

But meh. Fuck it. I bet this thread will die pretty quietly once everyone establishes that they think the other person is full of shit and have had their say. :V

 

[WolfNightV4X1]

So...back on point? What was the point? I already put my two cents in before the argument war,

I did say I do admire people who can like anyone regardless of gender/genders but that just isnt me

 

[Mentova]

So...back on point? What was the point? I already put my two cents in before the argument war,

I did say I do admire people who can like anyone regardless of gender/genders but that just isnt me

She wanted to see if anyone else identified as pansexual, of which there are plenty in this fandumb. Donno how many people do on the forums though.

 

[jtrekkie]

I didn't intend to snipe at you. I shouldn't have posted that. This has been an informative thread for me, even though that wasn't the intention. These kind of discussions go better when you have an articulate person moderating.

I really don't have anything to contribute. I am heterosexual. I have felt attraction to males in the past (which I find embarrassed now although I don't know why), I don't now yet I don't have any preference for gender as I understand it.

I guess I have some things to think about.

 

[Cekuba]

I am a straight toaster with army knife grip and bisexual tendencies towards purple toasters who are transgender.

Okay, I am just razzing here.

I don't really identify with much, straight really... Although, I am not really attracted to many people, it really depends on the person. I myself, feel very much male inside, but I don't mind being a female sexually, its how I was born. My mate is the opposite, and we are fine with who we are. If he somehow became female, I'd still love him and find him attractive, but that is just how I feel for him... I guess I am demi-sexual, and somewhat pansexual. I cannot really think of any female I would really be attracted too, but I don't really feel attracted to any males either besides my mate... I don't think that is entirely normal either... Picky-sexual??? XD

Cek

 

[1000bluntz]

Daily reminder that pansexuality isn't a thing.

"I'm so angry that people are calling themselves thing that I don't understand"

Why do you care in the first place what someone calls them self


OP at this point I would advise you to abandon this thread.

Ah, don't you love labels? Its almost as if the SJW of Tumblr want to divide us up into nice little categories for systematic oppression :V

"PANSEXUALITY IS WEIRD TO ME...WHY CAN'T PEOPLE JUST ADHERE TO WHAT I THINK IS THE RIGHT WAY TO SEXUALLY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE JUST A PRENTETIOUS TUMBLR HIPSTER"

You really can't argue w/ these people.

 

[Duality Jack]

"I'm so angry that people are calling themselves thing that I don't understand"

Nah, Most research has come to the conclusion that pansexuality (and gender for that matter) are intellectual constructs.

Also Heterosexuality, Bisexuality and Homosexuality are just expressions of Androphilia and gynephilia, or both. (Attraction to males and Females)

Pansexuality is only a thing due to the pressures for us to create gender identities which is not a natural concept and when we fail to meet those constructs (or people we feel attractive to fail to meet them) we create concepts to cope with that.

 

[1000bluntz]

Nah, Most research has come to the conclusion that pansexuality (and gender for that matter) are intellectual constructs.

Also Heterosexuality, Bisexuality and Homosexuality are just expressions of Androphilia and gynephilia, or both. (Attraction to males and Females)

Pansexuality is only a thing due to the pressures for us to create gender identities which is not a natural concept and when we fail to meet those constructs (or people we feel attractive to fail to meet them) we create concepts to cope with that.

And who are you to say what human nature is ? You do realize there's no consensus in the scientific community on human nature right ? So what do you mean it's not a 'natural' concept ?
Gender itself is argued to be a social construct, the gender binary is the current norm. Masculine men, feminine females. Gay/Straight/Bisexual model does not include all genders, that's why some people have a problem with those terms. But please explain to me the harm in identifying as whatever the fuck you want ? I'm gender neutral and pansexual- please explain to me what that has anything to do with you or anybody else ? I don't rub it in anybodys face, I don't flaunt it about (and even if I did flaunt it, is this neckbeard chump going to tell me to stop ?) it's who I am, who knows me better than me ? Why do you have such a problem with it ? Because you love waving your psuedointellectual dick.


I'd also like to add: Nothing really..pressured me into being gender neutral and queer, it actually came very naturally to me. What I realized was actually pressuring me was society and my family, straight men and women are forever seen as 'normal' to so many.

 

[RedSavage]

Nah, Most research has come to the conclusion that pansexuality (and gender for that matter) are intellectual constructs.

?????
Implying that all terms that describe sexuality aren't intellectual constructs???

Also, I like how you claim all this "research" without any actual links to said research. No no--don't strain yourself with the effort. I'll look it up myself when I get home I my computer.

 

[WolfNightV4X1]

ITS GETTING WORSE ABANDON SHIP

 

[RedSavage]

ITS GETTING WORSE ABANDON SHIP

Actually, I've pretty much already accepted it. It is what it is.

In fact, I find it fascinating enough to not even care. The natural evolution (de-evolution?) of this thread, as well as a few others currently going in this forum, is actually rather fascinating.

 

[Alexxx-Returns]

Sexuality is a complex and pretty darn interesting thing, and people generally like to debate the hell out of it =P

 

[jtrekkie]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to create a thread about sexuality in general? All in all the discussion here has gone fairly well, and there seems to be a lot yet to be said.

 

[Alexxx-Returns]

Surely we must have a general sexuality discussion thread already?

 

[RedSavage]

Sexuality is a complex and pretty darn interesting thing, and people generally like to debate the hell out of it =P

Yeah, no shit.

For the record, I found absolutely no online research or articles done on the non-existence of pansexuality. So if, uh, Jack would like to help reveal the existence of said article, or explain from which professor or speaker whom he got this statement and research done, I'd be grateful.


But hey, here's some shit. Apparently my distinctions between the two sexualities can be considered completely wrong.

With what I've read in the past few hours, at least, I feel that I was wrong. So let me reveal what I found to be a more succinct perspective.

Feel free to utterly not give a shit and/or completely disagree.
----------------

-Bisexuality: Being attracted to people of the same gender as yourself and to different genders.

-Pansexuality: Being attracted to all genders. (Attraction regardless of gender)

The correct latin root meanings (thus making my previous statements towards Mentova full of shit):

Bi: Two or more genders. 1) Your gender 2) Other genders.
Pan: All genders.

Overlap: Yes, they exist between the two. (But--technically there is an overlap between heterosexual and homosexual, as both have an attraction to the opposite gender. So--nonpoint).

Distinction:

Many (not all) bisexuals do see gender as an influencing factor in attraction. While they may like -many- genders, they might find different things about those genders attractive.

Many (not all) pansexuals express the idea that gender has no impact on their attraction to a person.
----------------------------------------------

So, alright. I can learn something new everyday.
Feel free to continue on about how labels are just like, totally overrated, man, and that it shouldn't even be discussed.

And to call me out on my own shit. Like--for realsies. I feel like I'm the only one in this fuckin' place who's willing to go out, do a bit of reading, and come back with the paperwork and say, "Well fuck. You guys had some points and I was completely wrong on shit."

If nobody's here to maybe consider the fact that they're wrong or that they have something new to learn, then you're more or less just here to state your opinions as fact and go on about how you're right and the other person is wrong. Yeah--cue sarcastic response of, "Isn't that what we all do?" But no, I don't think everyone does that. I just think most are too lazy/proud to change their line of thought.

Like, I would heavily consider Jack's supposed research into my own personal opinion on the matter if I could fuckin' find it anywhere.

 

[jtrekkie]

That certainly makes more sense than anything I've read thus far.

 

[Evan of Phrygia]

(But--technically there is an overlap between heterosexual and homosexual, as both have an attraction to the opposite gender. So--nonpoint).

could you elaborate? is there a source offering reasoning for this?


also i just wanna say that part of the reason i try to pick at the reasoning of pansexuality is because i just don't quite entirely understand it (which i guess brings up a different concern of immediate dislike towards non-understanding but that is a different discussion altogether). in throwing my opinions and this's where they are, it's more so that i want to understand where pansexuality is more concrete (and i'm going to take some this's back on posts that i have become less and less an advocate of). if my comments ever should be interpreted as a distinct disregard for the information that has shaped your understanding of the situation, then that is a fault on my part. however i want to underline that when i challenge things stated in this topic, it is because i do not understand how the label has a differentiated function and therefore cannot understand the purpose. i think if i could find the provisions for a credible argument (which i think you are trying to provide in a slurry of confusion) to understand the topic better, then i could probably eventually take pansexuality to be a legitimate concept. however, i want to underline that i (at least try to) treat that as a different mentality than denying a "false" theory.
never wanted to make this discussion for the sake of invalidation, so much as there were things that seemed problematic to me and could/should be addressed to better validate or reconstruct my/our understanding of the topic.

 

[RedSavage]

could you elaborate? is there a source offering reasoning for this?

There is heavy argument that because, by certain definitions, Pansexuality and Bisexuality share certain conditions, that they can't be exclusive of each other--that Pansexuality is Bisexuality with a few more conditions tacked on.

With this logic, one could argue that Bisexuality doesn't exist. That it's simply being Heterosexual with a little bit of alternate attraction being tacked on. Or Asexuality doesn't exist. That it's just Hetero/Homosexual relationship without sexual desire.

The logic, when pulled around like this, simply doesn't work. The argument could rightfully be made that I'm misconstruing the logic and applying it incorrectly. Feel free to correct me if I am.

This is merely a perspective gathered from googling "Differences between Pansexuality and Bisexuality". And this: http://www.bust.com/5-common-myths-about-bisexuality-pansexuality-debunked.html

 

[Duality Jack]

And who are you to say what human nature is ?

There is a consensus on the fact gender is a social construct. *sigh* and thus terms which where built on the idea of gender being relevant by extension are as well. Your rage makes you seem insecure as well, lets be mature and not name call.

 

[RedSavage]

There is a consensus on the fact gender is a social construct. *sigh* and thus terms which where built on the idea of gender being relevant by extension are as well. Your rage makes you seem insecure as well, lets be mature and not name call.

For the record I really would like to see this study. Brain scan studies are extremely cool. :C

Like--I want to know if they people they were studying even really KNEW the difference between pan and bi. Like--did all the pan people just think that because they though "bi" meant 2 genders they couldn't be it because they were attracted to third-gender types? Or were they legitimately non-seeing on gender and were merely attracted to personality?

Like, I don't argue because I want to be right. I argue because chances are someone else is right and I can learn something new. Or at the very least, I can learn a different perspective.

 

[Duality Jack]

For the record I really would like to see this study. Brain scan studies are extremely cool. :C

Like--I want to know if they people they were studying even really KNEW the difference between pan and bi. Like--did all the pan people just think that because they though "bi" meant 2 genders they couldn't be it because they were attracted to third-gender types? Or were they legitimately non-seeing on gender and were merely attracted to personality?

Like, I don't argue because I want to be right. I argue because chances are someone else is right and I can learn something new. Or at the very least, I can learn a different perspective.

I have to dig through the papers at my 'office' (also known as my tiny fucking desk beside 8 other desks). The life of a horribly disorganized RA. (I like to think I am the Hot RA)

Also the current refined definitions (the ones that are being used for clarity and actually getting somewhere without arguing semantics) of "heterosexuality" "bisexuality" and "Homosexuality" reference Physical Sex (or sex semblance), not gender.

 

[RedSavage]

I have to dig through the papers at my 'office' (also known as my tiny fucking desk beside 8 other desks). The life of a horribly disorganized RA. (I like to think I am the Hot RA. )

Also the current refined definitions (the ones that are being used for clarity and actually getting somewhere without arguing semantics) of "heterosexuality" "bisexuality" and "Homosexuality" reference Physical Sex (or sex semblance), not gender.

Hmmmm interesting. Especially the "sex semblance" part tacked onto physical sex. Because then you'd have to assume everyone aims their "sex semblance" to be in that gender binary. I feel like that opens a whole 'nother can of worms, but I also feel that it's irrelevant for the sake of conversation.

So for the sake of staying within your definitions, I can certainly see how that would be a acceptably simplified list of sexualities. But you'd have to first convince everyone to go by the refined version and accept it wholeheartedly outside of the gender debate. Which would be a right bitch and a half.

Also you'd have to tool in the way it would distinguish "attraction to sex" and "non attraction to sex--but still into sex". I feel like pansexual is the acceptable direct inverse of Asexuality, except sex is still thoroughly enjoyed in an emotional manner.