The growing trend of accommodation | Forum
Pages: 1 2 3 »
Pansexualism /Freud is the basis for setting a growing trend in pansexuality. For the most part, it pushes forth an idea of non-binary sex and gender. As a bisexual, I am constantly faced with how exclusionary the term 'Bi-Sexual' can be towards others. This is not my concern however society appears to be swayed towards being accommodating and accepting of this endeavor. I am encountering more and more people that find it necessary to weigh in on my term use.
In terms of the Pleasure Principle, desire can be driven by more than base instinct. This accounts for why there is sexual attraction to say, inanimate objects, animals and children. Culturally, the term 'pansexual' seeks to distance itself from these fetishes thereby excluding them.
If the progenitors seek to correct me, I find it difficult to ignore their hypocrisy.
Should I ignore biology and environmental influences in favor of considering the feelings of others? Is there a consideration for my perspective on the issue? Especially when self-identified pansexuals demonstrate a preference while attempting to virtue signal?
It doesn't exactly put forth a convincing argument. Nothing thus far has changed my mind about it. Stratifying indeed.
Have you encountered this off the nets? If so, how do you handle it?
Several times. I usually just avoid the conflict, but when I don't the conversation is as the following:
Me: I'm bi-sexual
Person: I'm pan-sexual
Me: What does that mean? Doesn't pan mean all? So you are attracted to all genders? Why not just say you're bisexual?
Person: It's more than that!
Me: You like to fuck inflatables, toasters, and horses????
Person: NO!
Me: Then wtf does the pan part mean?
Person: It means attraction to ALL!
Me: Oh ok, then bisexual it is.
The conversation can continue like this ad infinitum, until they leave, or they change the subject.
Oh, it's a fetish...
Saying, "You know, I love the curves of hips, with broad shoulders and a cock" puts one in a realm where the most attractive things are M-F Transgender and masculine body traits common in lesbians.
For myself, it's sort of in the middle as to what exact part of the anatomy it is.
I have boiled it down to:
1. Neutral facial features
2. Masculine upper body
3. Feminine lower body
4. Fake tits are more aesthetic to compliment the hips.
I have no illusions of normalcy, but I also wouldn't classify it along specific diometric traits either.
Maybe "Pan" is a way to "accomodate" the fetish, or ones similar?
"Maybe "Pan" is a way to "accomodate" the fetish, or ones similar?"
No, that's my point. They don't want it to include fetishes (well most I've talked to don't). They want it to be about all the various new genders on the gender spectrum.
The most common counter, is to argue the current cultural definition while ignoring the original context. Biologically, there are only two sets of equipment. Sex is rarely a concern for this sort. They really believe it's about romance, and respecting a person's needs. As if they've already earned it. Casual sex, to them, means you have to care about your partner. Psh. Presumptuous and idiotic, especially if it's assumed that thought process is shared by their intended.
Quote from Entropic "Maybe "Pan" is a way to "accomodate" the fetish, or ones similar?"
Seems like is an outgrowth of that whole feminist "muh objectification" thing.
Sexual attraction is all about objectification. Sexuality takes a whole, complex human being and reduces them to flesh, and tosses them around like a rag doll.
Feminists resent being reduced to objects for others' pleasure. It runs against the grain of their narrative about muh equality and muh sexual assault and muh respect and "I am woman, hear me roar!" They especially hate it because they hate that they like it--the lady doth protest too much.
So they develop this conceit that sexual attraction is about the matching or fitting together of two souls. So then, if one is attracted to dick, they are really drawn to the masculine soul, and attraction to pussy is the feminine soul.
And that ties into the special snowflake narrative. "Oh, I'm unique because I'm one of 87 Tumblr genders!"
But yeah, it's conceit and denial confronting what is really fetish.
Another aspect to draw in, is that this sort feels impassioned to fight the battles of others. As a cultural corrector. If say, a Trans presentation of gender is criticized or ridiculed; they are there to finger wag and sometimes get violent towards the offender. As if that method works. Mostly people don't want to be labeled a bigot or being discriminatory. As if prejudice doesn't already play a role in their actions. Shit is coo-coo brains.
THIS is my favorite incident of it in 2015.
The Forum post is edited by SIN_JONES Oct 15 '17
" No, that's my point. They don't want it to include fetishes (well most I've talked to don't). They want it to be about all the various new genders on the gender spectrum."
I'm in contrast to the others here, but also the above. As I enjoy the challenge of "sexual identities" But not for social justice reasons or because I want a world of unisex bathrooms.
To me there are two default genders (unless you're a mule deer or guinea fowl). What's I enjoy is the subversion of "animal reproduction" and heterosexual relationships... for bitter and resentful reasons.
I just...no. Just no.
I'm not playing that game now, I wasn't before, and I won't in the future.
You either like guys, girls, or both. There are no other options.
Whether or not you like guys in lipstick and dresses or girls with short hair and slacks is just irrelevant to the question.
Society is playing it. Liberals seem to think they set the rules. We don't have to play but it doesn't mean the game isn't in the stadium. It leaves the arena, and then it's in the streets. It's coming through your front door.
Only insofar as people accept the rules. People are easily herded, tis true, but it works in both directions. This is a phase, like the fidget spinner.
Certainly. Which is why I don't think the end of days is Nigh... Like so many fear, or hope.
Quote from Sin JonesSociety is playing it. Liberals seem to think they set the rules. We don't have to play but it doesn't mean the game isn't in the stadium. It leaves the arena, and then it's in the streets. It's coming through your front door.
Way to tow to the Rush Limbaugh party line.
Currently the Liberals have the advantage. It's a two party system and such.
Instead of Conservative pushes like; pro-life, defining marriage, and other 90% JC slanted moralizing you're seeing the liberal inverse which makes you acknowledge the Q chromosome.
It's quite amusing to watch. Especially because it's the same line of: "People are shoving it in our face and telling me what to think about _______".
The one truly ubiquitous thing.
Just wait it out, like I'm doing with this adminstration... Along those manufactured lines that motivate me anyway...
Is it Rush's line to tow? Pretty sure most Constitutional Conservatives feel that way, and they throw NeoCons under the bus too. To equate conservatives with the Religious sort is a misstep, It just happens that they find the Republican Party a seat that aligns with ideologies they agree with. Wasn't marriage already defined? And it was Liberals that demanded changes and amendments?
Perhaps you should step out of your Californication.
"Is it Rush's line to tow? Pretty sure most Constitutional Conservatives feel that way, and they throw NeoCons under the bus too. To equate conservatives with the Religious sort is a misstep, It just happens that they find the Republican Party a seat that aligns with ideologies they agree with."
"It just so happens" my ass, it's the primary motivation. If "this administration" went after Roe V. Wade, it would be a glorious day for their religious reclaimation of godly sanctity. For the few maybe, but the rest can't intrinsically extract God from fucking country.. Why isn't God considered a privilege too?
It's naive to say that most republicans wouldn't cite "their faith" as a major motivation for their alignment if pressed. You saw this with Obama. Everything was "He's a socialist + liberal agenda." Which was coincidentally a line always spoken in tandem with a the phrases "big brother" and "the illuminati" in a way also seeming intrinsically linked.
"Wasn't marriage already defined? And it was Liberals that demanded changes and amendments?"
And the response was 90%, "No, bible says you queers aren't natural, so we're gonna preempt you with constitutional ammendments, and appeal to government to fight our ideological battles."
Copy/Paste.
SCOTUS onlt brought it even, and this is that momentum carrying to a preemptive redefinition from the left.
"Perhaps you should step out of your Californication."
Why? If I like this nomos.
FemaleSatan Oct 23 '17
I know only ONE person who has tossed out the "pan" label that made me go alright, that's what you are. He was with a man for about five years, had no real attraction to men before and hasn't been with any men since nor acts attracted to other men, just this one guy, for a period of time in his life. He claims he was attracted to his soul, in spite of his equipment, and physical attraction followed.
People are very I'm a super unique individual right now while being super bothered by anything that is actually counter cultural or reflects actual individualism. Calling yourself a non binary, gender fluid pansexual is just another reflection of that pre packaged individuality the collective is selling.
Quote from Dan_DreadYou either like guys, girls, or both. There are no other options.
"Neither" isn't an option?
Quote from Dan_DreadWhether or not you like guys in lipstick and dresses or girls with short hair and slacks is just irrelevant to the question.
What is the question? "You like guys or girls"?" "You like dick or pussy?" Or, in a more open-ended sense, "What do you like?"
If someone asks if you are a tits man or an ass man, is that "irrelevant to the question," or is that a different question altogether?
Quote from XiaoGui17
Do not confuse a fetish with sexual orientation.
It has always been either the one or the other (and in a few cases both).
There will always be a certain, unspoken, preference.
Neither is an option, sure. But that guy is outside of this discussion.
Guys/girls dick/pussy is the same damn question.
Fetishes are after the fact. Maybe you can't get hard unless your partner strokes it with a cheese grater first. It's still ultimately about the D or the P.