Asexual porn... Let me think... Hmmm... Needs more thinking...
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asexual porn:
Pizza guy: Pizza delivery!
Attractive single female customer: Oh dear, I'm out of cash! Well, perhaps we can come up with another way to pay, if you know what I mean?
Pizza guy: ...
Attractive single female customer: Can you take a check?
Pizza guy: I usually don't but I'll make an exception. Thanks, enjoy your pizza!
*THE END*
Asexuals are more numerous, 1% or more of the population. But they recieve almost no publicity, certainly less than transgendered persons.
Why? My guess is asexuality is more invisible, less obvious and much easier to hide. And there is no asexuals in porn I know of.
And there is genuine difficulty of discerning between people that are asexual and late bloomers. Lots of people might also have temporarily lowered libido due to external conditions (depression, poor nutrition, stress, other health or psychological issues) or just suppressing/denying their sexuality due to social conditioning. On the other hand there might be asexual people that force themselves to act sexually because of social conditioning and societal pressure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't go! I may know next to nothing about LGBT topics and events but your posts (as well as almost everyone else on here) are always insightful and I enjoy reading them because they give me understanding and also keep me from making faux pas' when dealing with people so that they're comfortable instead of on edge or insulted or hurt.
Yes, it's nice to get more info on this, so thanks!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was a giant mistake for me to come back into this threadIs there a place I can find the statistics on this sort of thing?It varies from person to person, but:
1) Most trans people don't want their old name shared, especially without their permissions. To most people, especially women who've transitioned and live fulltime, it is a vulnerability, like sharing their medical information or allergies without their permission.
I have Thoughts (tm) on this discussion, but I don't want to jump in on discussions now a week old anymore than necessary. TL;DR how you phrase things is the difference between communicating a genuine interest and challenging someone's experiences. In short, asking for stats directly is a bit blunt (and can come across as invalidating). But I get the feeling this wasn't Ashiel's intent at all. This has been hashed out. Moving on...
Crystal, I'm sad to see you you to go. I was actually really happy to see you were on the Diversity in Pathfinder panel at PaizoCon specifically because I really enjoy your contributions to this thread. But I also don't want anyone to stay in a space they find isn't helpful for them or a good use of their time/energy. Know I'm among the numerous people who hope you return. (Ideally without the use of Conjuration. Unless we're talking Teleportation Subschool. Then that's OK.).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Biological markers of asexuality: Handedness, birth order, and finger length ratios in self-identified asexual men and women.Interesting paper looking at human asexuality as a discrete thing and any possible physical/neurological basis for it. You don't often see much on this particular topic in the hard sciences, so while very preliminary, it's important.
you just made my day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Asexual porn:
Pizza guy: Pizza delivery!
Attractive single female customer: Oh dear, I'm out of cash! Well, perhaps we can come up with another way to pay, if you know what I mean?
Pizza guy: ...
Attractive single female customer: Can you take a check?
Pizza guy: I usually don't but I'll make an exception. Thanks, enjoy your pizza!
*THE END*
*sob*
I have a question (and, holy balls, am I bad at articulating myself on these issues).
Personally, I think we are, at the most, a decade away from labels not meaning anything. What if we just stop caring about binary thinking about sexual identity, and just roll with it.
Personal experience- I've considered myself a "straight guy". From life experience, you could put me on a "spectrum" if I was uncomfortably placed, but even that fails. I kissed an old (male) friend goodbye a couple of weeks ago. It didn't feel strange, until I over-thought it.
Is the LGBT label important beyond political means? The notion of "homosexuality" was invented. Before that, it was just LIFE.
It drives me crazy, because I don't see a good reason to see LGBT as "others". LGBT has been a movement (probably a necessary one) to defend human rights. When (not if) those rights are won, can the labels be let go? Or is there an intrinsic value, I'm not seeing?
*puts on a respectable looking suit and a tie, pins badge that reads "Devil's Advocate" onto the lapel*
But labels can mean different things to different people, and they come with their own prejudices and expectations. How can you be sure what it is exactly you're telling someone when you use a specific label? People aren't so simplistic that a few labels can summarize the entirety of their intrinsic nature. To quote a famous cartoon character "I yam wot I yam and that's all wot I yam" or to put it more eloquently: you are who you are, a unique individual the likes of which has not been seen before nor will be again. This is despite whatever superficial similarities to others you bear, because although we're all human (for now at least) we are all unique individuals and while some of us may have similar patterns of behaviour there is never another person quite like you.
*pretends he didn't just crib the argument from a web-comic while embellishing it, removes badge from lapel and takes off the monkey-suit*
|
*puts on a respectable looking suit and a tie, pins badge that reads "Devil's Advocate" onto the lapel*
But labels can mean different things to different people, and they come with their own prejudices and expectations. How can you be sure what it is exactly you're telling someone when you use a specific label? People aren't so simplistic that a few labels can summarize the entirety of their intrinsic nature. To quote a famous cartoon character "I yam wot I yam and that's all wot I yam" or to put it more eloquently: you are who you are, a unique individual the likes of which has not been seen before nor will be again. This is despite whatever superficial similarities to others you bear, because although we're all human (for now at least) we are all unique individuals and while some of us may have similar patterns of behaviour there is never another person quite like you.
*pretends he didn't just crib the argument from a web-comic while embellishing it, removes badge from lapel and takes off the monkey-suit*
I agree with all of that. And yet...
Humans are social creatures. Every individual has a right to be, well, individual, but we cannot forget that humans naturally, automatically make judgements about their environment and, like it or not, other people are an important part of that environment.
One of the most important social things we do is to quickly work out who is available to mate with, whether you're consciously thinking about sex (or marriage) or not.
So labels are a useful shorthand. Humans are hard-wired to reach fast judgements. Those of our forebears who spent time wondering if this lion could be a friendly lion had much less chance of surviving to sire children than those who made the (totally unfair to this unique lion!) judgement that 'lions are unfriendly'.
So humans are evolved to...label things, including people.
I'm not saying that this is fair, it is just acknowledging reality.
We would be better served by learning how to manage this reality than by denying or bemoaning it. And while it may be helpful for each one of us to wear a badge with our sexual orientation on it, I can't see it catching on. : )
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dammit, the whole post I was typing was erased by hitting some wrong button or something.
Short version... It does not need to be so complicated, once we move past post-bigotry, post conditioning...
We're human, not some artificially created label to describe what's outside the cultural bullshit we live under. Those labels are a fairly recent notions- Made by people who wanted to condemn same-sex sexuality, and transgender people.
"LGBT" is JUST human. Not an "alternative lifestyle". It's why I hate the pop culture representations of gay people- "Glee" and "Modern Family" are awful, even though they have been celebrated by the LGBT community- They are the worst damn stereotypes. "Distressing Queens" and "Showtoon" ridiculous. It sucks. I've never known a gay guy who resembles such BS.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the LGBT label important beyond political means? The notion of "homosexuality" was invented. Before that, it was just LIFE.
Here's the thing, though (and why I consider anybody who wonders "why do we need labels?" as at least slightly naive), people can still be disgusted/prejudiced towards acts. That prejudice still exists even if there isn't a label for it, and will continue to affect the things people make and do. For example, it's very hard to argue about inclusivity and diversity in the media when there isn't a label for what you want.
When you say "no but I saw in your show last week that you made a guy and a girl kiss, so I wanted to see two girls/guys instead," the person in charge can be like "well that's ridiculous, you can't expect us to satisfy every little desire for diversity! If we do that, we might have to show two green-eyed people kissing, or two short people, or two people wearing X outfit or having Y hairstyle! We can't afford to cater all the infinite possibilities!"
And because you don't have a label, you can't actually explain why two people of the same gender kissing is more important than two people with green eyes kissing.
Similarly, without such definitions there is no way to protect people from discrimination, which means that businesses can discriminate versus their employees or clients, and since there are no labels for what they are, the law can't do anything. And not just businesses, also landlords, healthcare and pretty much everything that isn't the state.
Likewise, there's no way to argue against adoption agencies or governments/religions discriminating against LGBT people, as they can easily shield their prejudice behind the idea of "upholding traditional, standard family units."
So you will forgive me if I find those arguments naive, since they tend to come from the perspective of people who haven't faced much in the way of systemic discrimination.
Labels are important. Just ask the scientific community. You can get all starry eyed and talk about how we are just like, humans, man. The truth of the matter is, we are bound by similar experiences. We develop based on how we are different in both negative and positive ways.
Why yes, people use these labels to come down on whole swathes of people, but these swathes of people, under that label, find kinship. Finding a strength.
Sorry if that was a bit rambly. It's quite late. I just felt the need to chime in.
In other news, an interesting promotional piece about star trek, but more interesting is the inclusion of Charlie Logan.
They even include a picture of him
I can see he's a huge Star Trek (and from the picture I assume Star Wars) fan, I wonder if he's also a big PF or Paizo fan?
Edit: Deleted my post. Don't want to be that guy that tells other people what they should or should not be offended by.
Note: Don't call me naïve.
Edit: Deleted my post. Don't want to be that guy that tells other people what they should or should not be offended by.
Note: Don't call me naïve.
I apologise, I don't consider naive to be an offensive adjective. We're all naive about many subjects, on account on not being familiar with all of the things ever. I consider it a normal part of being a human, so forgive me if I didn't see it as something offensive.
That said, most people who propose those type of arguments tend to be obnoxiously arrogant, as if they've just discovered the cure for cancer and everyone's a complete fool for not going along with them. I'm not saying you were like that, but I feel I must warn you of how most people who hold that ideology behave, and explain why I pointed out the lack of familiarity with certain experiences.
What seems to have been missed in all this is that the argument I put forth is one I don't actually support. I figured specifically calling out that I was playing devil's advocate would have been enough but apparently it got overlooked so let me add some emphasis.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think my favorite comment I read about labels involves boxes and cats.
There's a vast difference between putting a cat in a box, and the cat getting in the box voluntarily of its own accords.
Labels are kind of like that—we tend to own the ones we choose for ourselves, and often reject those applied to us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, labels… a subject I have so many conflicting feelings about. May I elaborate on some of them, and hope they make any sense?
Like SunshineGrrrl and Lilith, I think a lot of people find labels useful, especially when they fit, and when they fit at least well enough, as far as they can tell - which of course is not to say people might not be wrong, and perhaps ought to reconsider how useful any given label is.
If this person is me, I find it much more convenient to be able to streamline the process by saying that I’m trans and lesbian, for example. In a hypothetical club, I can let guys as a group know that I’m not interested, and filter out transphobic people. (If someone insists that, labels aside, I could always meet that special guy, who’s policing whose identity?) In my experience, at least, sex, as opposed to sexuality, too, tends to be an area in which the currently prevailing categories are more likely to be accepted, despite how much culture goes into it as well (e.g., why only two sexes, so often, still?). Nonetheless, practically speaking, in many contexts I’m not sure how rigid many labels actually are. I don’t have a mystical sense of what women in general are, for example. Knowing that someone is a woman tells me that she sees herself as fitting somehow into a category conventionally associated with certain characteristics, but it’s not my place to speculate about where she may diverge from them. Similarly, if I know Y is a lesbian, that tells me nothing about what she looks like, her general comportment, even how lesbian is “lesbian enough” on a Kinsey-type scale, in her understanding. Labels often define a rather fuzzy horizon of possibilities.
Is the LGBT label important beyond political means? The notion of "homosexuality" was invented. Before that, it was just LIFE.
On a more general note, I would disagree that it was ever “just” life. In the go-to Western example of ancient Greece and Rome used to historicize ideas about (homo)sexuality, there were still all sorts of words for who did what to whom, often used quite cruelly, and what even really counted as sex, basically, depended on it. A lot of it was about who was on top, who penetrated, and so on, in ways that are quite alien to the modern imagination – or else people who study ancient sexuality would have a much easier time of it. In many ways, I think it was useful, in the history of the study of human sexuality, to have thought, “Wait a minute, these men are attracted to other men, and these women are attracted to other women. There seems to be something these two groups have in common that is not power dynamics in their sexual relationships…”
Much as the modern idea of “homosexuality” emerged under specific conditions, it’s quite a different thing to argue that it did not emerge earlier because it could not and should not have been relevant, as opposed to other factors influencing what was seen as salient in a given society’s view of sexuality. We almost certainly will never know if Sappho was a little-l lesbian more narrowly defined, but it’s also a bold claim to make about the evolution of human sexuality that there were no women whose orientation was exclusively homosexual (regardless of how their circumstances may have forced them to live, the deep closets of many pre-modern societies, and so on) prior to c. 1869, for example.| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What seems to have been missed in all this is that the argument I put forth is one I don't actually support. I figured specifically calling out that I was playing devil's advocate would have been enough but apparently it got overlooked so let me add some emphasis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Deleted my post. Don't want to be that guy that tells other people what they should or should not be offended by.
Note: Don't call me naïve.
I apologise, I don't consider naive to be an offensive adjective. We're all naive about many subjects, on account on not being familiar with all of the things ever. I consider it a normal part of being a human, so forgive me if I didn't see it as something offensive.
That said, most people who propose those type of arguments tend to be obnoxiously arrogant, as if they've just discovered the cure for cancer and everyone's a complete fool for not going along with them. I'm not saying you were like that, but I feel I must warn you of how most people who hold that ideology behave, and explain why I pointed out the lack of familiarity with certain experiences.
In one sense I must be naïve, because I feel like I have offended, and had no idea I had.
I honestly just don't like the division I see as a result of so strongly categorizing people. However, I can see how sharing an opinion like mine can either come off as arrogant and dismissive, or just flaky idealism that sounds shallow and dismissive as well. I wish it came across more clearly, that I'd only post on a topic like this, from a place of respect.
In one sense I must be naïve, because I feel like I have offended, and had no idea I had.
I honestly just don't like the division I see as a result of so strongly categorizing people. However, I can see how sharing an opinion like mine can either come off as arrogant and dismissive, or just flaky idealism that sounds shallow and dismissive as well. I wish it came across more clearly, that I'd only post on a topic like this, from a place of respect.
It's fine, I was just being pre-emptive about the matter. Perhaps a little too much so?
Anyway, something I forgot to address regarding your previous posts is that you claim that we're a decade away at most from labels not meaning anything. That has multiple meanings. Either you mean that the overuse and confusion regarding labels will render them meaningless, which is a valid criticism, or (relating it to your other post), you think that within a decade we'll move past discrimination.
The first idea makes sense, but as long as heterosexuality remains so firmly embedded in our culture, it will continue to be upheld as the both the ideal to aspire to and the standard, "normal" thing. This is due to a body of media and traditions that will not disappear over a decade. They may become (slightly) more inclusive, but they will not change overmuch in just a decade. That said, even if the many specific labels we have now lose meaning, we will always need a label for "not-heterosexual", which will always have intrinsic meaning so long as heterosexuality is given such a prominent space in society. The same can be said with regards to cis and trans.
The second idea is just, in my opinion, thoroughly unrealistic. It too has many different interpretations, but even all of them fall short of the "within one decade" mark. Moving past discrimination on a world basis is thoroughly unfeasible when there are still places in the world that still have, for example, unspeakable discrimination against women. There are still plenty of countries in the world where violence against LGBTQ+ is encouraged and sanctioned by the government (and obviously, places where homosexuality is still illegal).
So let's narrow down the scope. Let's say "ending discrimination in first-world countries." That's still not going to happen within a decade, as tradition, religion and the media continue refusing us a place in society. It's changing, sure, but it won't happen within a decade.
So let's narrow even further. Let's just say "gaining equal rights under the law, in first-world countries." Now that is finally a scope that is theoretically feasible within the proposed time period. However, I would argue that the only thing that can eliminate the final pockets of resistance in first-world countries is natural death, and a decade is not enough time for the current homo/transphobes to die off and be replaced by the less prejudiced.
Overall, I do not see anything changing majorly within one decade, other than a few more states in the US and countries in Europe/Latin America getting (some) rights under the law.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems I made a bit of a faux pas here and for that I'd like to apologize. I was unaware of a trend of hiding behind the position of devil's advocate in order to spout bile or what one perceives others would see as such. I did not intend to come off like that and once again apologize for doing so. I will henceforth stay out of that particular debate for either side.
Re: Star Trek and homosexuality
What, does it not count if one of the individuals in a couple is half alien? I am of course referring to the couple of Kirk and Spock. I would make my arguments here, but why bother when the Youtube series The Ship's Closet does it more thoroughly then I have time to right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've also heard a number of people, possibly even in this thread, talking about how it felt when they first learned that other people shared their experiences. "There's a name for it?" Knowing you fit in can help a lot. Especially for those with less common takes on sexual orientation or on gender.
I really should have thought of that, since that was certainly the case for me. Thanks. I suppose that suggests how long it's been and how much better the place I am now seems to me, though I'm still years from where I see myself eventually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Labels are also the appropriately scientific thing to do. Things need names!
I have a 100+ pages book detailing the sorting system in Swedish libraries that says labels can be very useful.
Also, in my experience, while I haven't seen this in the current discussion, in a majority of cases where someone claims to not want to use labels for people's sexuality or ethnicity that I've seen, it's been to make the case that "we don't need any laws to protect group X, because that's covered by this law that applies to everyone!" So yeah, I get a bit wary whenever I hear that.
Edit: Swedish libraries. Not seedish. Although considering that a copy of everything that gets printed in the country hasto be sent to the Royal Library and the four biggest university libraries, I guess they all have sections that might qualify as both.
|
I am experiencing deja vu regarding the labels discussion.
To reiterate my opinion on this issue from three years ago:
Getting rid of labels would be wonderful, but it's never gonna happen. As human beings we are evolved to find meaning in things, and one of the primary ways we do that is by putting them into neat little boxes in our heads. Let's take something harmless like hair color: In reality, a spectrum from white to black with a million different shades between...but we still say someone is Blonde, or Brunette, or a Redhead. That's just the way our minds work, and it's not going to change.
But someday whether you're labeled straight, or gay, or bi might not matter any more than whether you're blonde or brunette.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another point to consider (since I feel I've not really mentioned trans issues), labels are a thing people use to feel better about themselves, and not wishing those labels didn't exist is, in a way, removing one of the coping mechanisms for trans people in particular. And there's no way that's ever not going to be necessary. Even if we some day arrive to a utopia where everything is fine, people will still have gender dysphoria, which is (to my limited knowledge) inherently distressing, and requires coping mechanisms even if you're in the most welcoming and accepting environment.
A label is useful when we're identifying ourselves to others. So, if I'm on a dating site, and I put that I am gay, I'm telling everyone there that I exclusively or nearly exclusively form sexual and romantic attachments with men. If I put that I'm bi, I'm saying that I am able to form sexual and romantic attachments with men and women. If I put that I am pansexual, I am emphasizing that I recognize the existence of people outside the gender binary, and find the whole range of human gender expression to be potentially attractive. If I say that I am asexual and homoromantic, I am saying that I form romantic attachments with men, and I do not generally form sexual connections with others. If I say I am polyamorous or prefer a polyamorous relationship, people know that I probably won't be content with a monogamous exclusive relationship. I could put all these various descriptions in their long forms, but using the individual labels makes it easier.
"Hi, I'm A, I'm a pansexual in a polyamorous relationship into kink and geeky stuff."
That's a lot easier to say than:
"Hi, I'm A, I tend to be attracted to men, women, and folks who identify outside of the gender binary, I am in a non-exclusive, non-monogamous committed relationship which leaves me open to date others, I enjoy power exchange dynamics and being sexually explorational and blah blah blah blah etc."
I will admit that, when I'm talking with people I don't know well, I sometimes casually refer to my marital status, but deliberately obfuscate whether I'm married to a man or a woman. It helps that my spouse has a gender-neutral name, so I can drop that without revealing it.
More generally, we're not going to stop with labels. That's a good part of who we are as humans. We are language-using apes. Putting things in categories and naming them is what we do. It's not a bad thing. We can, and will, strip away a lot of the stereotyped nonsense that gets attached to the labels, but we won't do away with the labels. It's how we talk about things.
It is even more than that. A large amount of the human brain is dedicated to language use. And language is not only how we communicate, but how we think.
It sounds like I'm in the minority regarding labels. But my discomfort with them is only to a point- I understand of course, that, as humans we do use language to name something to understand it in comparison to something else.
I've seen labels used totally as pejorative, while the person using the term gets to hide behind it, since other people use the term sincerely. Does that make sense? An example- "The homosexual agenda" is a common dig using a label, that bigots use to describe what decent people would just consider basic human rights. But there, I guess the problem isn't inherent in the label, just the ass using it with contempt.
It's been good reading the responses. They've given a lot of perspective I didn't have. Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like I'm in the minority regarding labels. But my discomfort with them is only to a point- I understand of course, that, as humans we do use language to name something to understand it in comparison to something else.
I've seen labels used totally as pejorative, while the person using the term gets to hide behind it, since other people use the term sincerely. Does that make sense? An example- "The homosexual agenda" is a common dig using a label, that bigots use to describe what decent people would just consider basic human rights. But there, I guess the problem isn't inherent in the label, just the ass using it with contempt.
It's been good reading the responses. They've given a lot of perspective I didn't have. Thank you.
You may be in the minority, but I do think there's some merit to what you're saying. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and say that the idea of eliminating labels is a bad thing, because dear gods, it'd be a nicer world if we were past the point where such things held any importance at all.
That far, I absolutely agree with you. If we lived in a world where your average male factory worker in Russia, Africa or Bible-Belt USA could just tell his colleagues no thanks, he can't come to the pub for a pint after work because his husband is waiting with dinner at home, and not fear the repurcussions, I think most of us would agree that Earth would be a better place overall.
But the sad thing is ... that's not the world we live in. And consequently, there is a need for these labels to help define what the problems faced by someone is. It doesn't even have to be about sexual minorities only ... it can be a matter of who you vote for or what you define your political -ism as. In some places, saying you're a conservative will make you a pariah. In other places, being a socialist practically makes you an enemy of the state. Same deal, really.
Judgemental people have sadly always existed and when you are in the minority, you're an easier target, because you're unlikely to have nearly as much political support or money as those who are in the majority, and who can therefore organize their hatred and prejudice far more effectively than you can organize your reaction.
This is why pride-parades are still necessary. A few years ago, while living in Ireland and working for Microsoft (a stain on my soul that I will have to answer for in the hereafter, I'm sure), I came across a group of people in the cafeteria one day, who were organizing LGBTI members of the staff for the local pride parade a couple of weeks later. I couldn't attend, since I wasn't in Dublin on that day, but I made a financial contribution and wished them a happy pride-day, but then, just as I left, I overheard a woman sneering at the man I had just spoken to, telling him that being gay was nothing to be proud of, that it was disgusting and an affront to God, who would ... yadda-yadda-yadda ...
The man I had spoken to very calmly and very politely told the woman that he was sorry that she felt that way, but that she was precisely the reason why pride-parades still needed to be held. Because people like her, with her hateful attitude and condescending nastiness, needed reminding that gays, lesbians, transgendered people, bisexuals, intersex people, asexuals, pansexuals and "the whole gammut of human sexuality that doesn't conform with your own, personal preferences" (as he put it to her, hence the quotation marks), were human beings, that we have the same rights and that we're not going to go away just because she wants us to.
Hence the need.
Yes, you're absolutely right, it's a political tool and it would be nicer if we could simply see it as "human rights" and be done with it.
But because those opposed to equal rights for people like us specifically dehumanize us, and try to make it sound like we're deliberately and often maliciously choosing to do something which is wicked, disgusting, amoral and foul (all of which is a bunch of hooey, of course, but this is what we are faced with), it is not a matter of human rights.
A common trope among arch-conservatives, for example, in the ongoing US debate over marriage equality, is that there is no need for the introduction of "equal rights", because there already IS equal rights. Every gay person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, exactly like everyone else. And because gay people are not in love, but simply lusting after a disgusting kind of abhorrent sex that should make everyone queasy (again, their trope, not mine), there is no point in arguing that it's about marrying a person you're in love with.
They are flatly denying the possibility of a same-sex couple being in love.
This is the level of stupidity we're still fighting even in the western world, and consequently, the labels are necessary as a political tool.
Personally, I hope we get to see a world more in tune with what you're saying ... where the labels simply aren't necessary anymore. But I'm not holding my breath.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I shall join in here too because I am a bisexual.
I first realized it when I was in my start teens and I have been RP´ing since I was around 16-17 years old. So hey, hello everyone.
I have a wonderful Boyfriend and I love roleplaying, but Pen and Paper but also forum RPs.
I have never been assaulted, either physically or verbally for being bisxual and I´ve had great support from friends, boyfriend and family. Granted some in my family don't know I am a bisexual. Pretty sure my dad doesn't know it. But in general it has been rather drama-free with my sexiality. Just down to earth really, so I don´t have much to share with you guys.
But hello to all!
Hello and welcome!
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Just to nitpick...
If I put that I'm bi, I'm saying that I am able to form sexual and romantic attachments with men and women. If I put that I am pansexual, I am emphasizing that I recognize the existence of people outside the gender binary, and find the whole range of human gender expression to be potentially attractive.
Bi- and pansexuality, as sexual orientations, have little to do with someone's opinion on the socially constructed gender binary.
The way I've seen it explained is that to be bisexual is to be attracted to more than one gender (and yes, the bi- prefix means "two" but etymology is not always a 100% accurate indicator of what a word means in its current usage), and potentially in different degrees. Pansexuality, on the other hand, means that gender just doesn't figure into sexual attraction. It's potentially a subtle difference, but it's important to realize that bisexuality is not inherently limited to the gender binary (despite the potentially misleading etymology).
Hello new people.
Just to nitpick...
If I put that I'm bi, I'm saying that I am able to form sexual and romantic attachments with men and women. If I put that I am pansexual, I am emphasizing that I recognize the existence of people outside the gender binary, and find the whole range of human gender expression to be potentially attractive.Bi- and pansexuality, as sexual orientations, have little to do with someone's opinion on the socially constructed gender binary.
The way I've seen it explained is that to be bisexual is to be attracted to more than one gender (and yes, the bi- prefix means "two" but etymology is not always a 100% accurate indicator of what a word means in its current usage), and potentially in different degrees. Pansexuality, on the other hand, means that gender just doesn't figure into sexual attraction. It's potentially a subtle difference, but it's important to realize that bisexuality is not inherently limited to the gender binary (despite the potentially misleading etymology).
Thank you for that. I probably should've chimed in myself when I caught it early.
Oh, I forgot to add a tidbit about why the etymology of "bisexual" 100% works. Homosexual and heterosexual refer to "same gender" and "different gender" attraction, so going from there, bisexual is an attraction to both same and different gendered folk.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you lot make up your mind if you want to do away with labels or have protracted discussions on getting the labels right. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you lot make up your mind if you want to do away with labels or have protracted discussions on getting the labels right. :P
Amen.