Paranoia and Pop Tarts, but you know how we roll

Posts tagged pansexuality

820 notes

Man, let’s say you’re at a party, yeah? And there are people at the party that prefer cake, and people at the party who prefer pie, so the host serves both. Alright, cool.

So you go in for a slice of pie, when suddenly the host CHARGES over and goes “WOAH WOAH WOAH WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?”

“I’m having some pie, man, chill.”

“What the hell? I thought you had cake last time.”

“Yeah, I did have cake last time. But I’m not feeling the cake tonight. And this is my favorite kind of pie.”

“Ohhh no. I thought you were a CAKE person and now all of a sudden you’re eating pie on me? You’re confusing me! Make up your mind!”

“What’s the big deal, even? There’s plenty of both for everyone.”

“YOU CAN’T LIKE BOTH CAKE AND PIE. YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE.”

But man, fuck that guy, I’m going to have the pie anyway, who cares if I had cake last week.

And then if that pie is so good that I never want any other dessert for the rest of my life, that doesn’t mean I suddenly never liked that cake that I ate.

tumblr user firegrowshigher, in response to a tweet saying “Im not homophobic but i hate bisexual people with a PASSION! Like make up yo mind do you like penis or vagina? Its that simple” (via lemonyfreshvictory)

This may be one of the best analogies for biphobia I’ve ever seen.

(via sketchyfletch)

I SEE WE ARE STILL HAVING THE HEATED CAKE VERSUS PIE DEBATE!

WHY CAN’T I JUST LIKE BOTH?

CAKE AND PIE HAVE DIVIDED THE WORLD.

(via ouyangdan)

ALL OF THE CAKES! ALL OF THE PIES! ALL OF THE TIME! YEAH!

(via jemimaaslana)

CAKE AND PIE ARE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS! WE’RE ALL BAKED GOODS

(via note-a-bear)

I approve of this analogy.  Even if it does involve cake.

(via ladonnapietra)

(Source: decisive-emu-victory, via pepperpeople)

Filed under bisexuality pansexuality

165 notes

justjasper:

This is a poor answer, especially from someone running a community blog for pansexuals.I’m pansexual, and I’m annoyed by my fellow pansexual/polysexual/multisexual etc. folks spouting off phrases such as “love should be about more than something as trivial as gender”, “I’m genderblind”, “love doesn’t see gender”. There are multiple problems with this:Gender is important, it’s not trivial. Try telling the trans people who get fucked over by society and people who are meant to be allies that gender is trivial (read: unimportant).While it’s true love might not be based on gender, attraction is (even if the gender isn’t based on binary criteria). That’s simple fact. Someone people are attracted to the same gender, some to the opposite, some to multiple gender presentations (also what defines “gender” and therefore attraction is different to all people). Attraction is a part of human relationships and ultimately love.Your love isn’t better because you’re attracted to the whole spectrum. And while I’ve never seen outright hostility from pansexuals, I hate this attitude that seems to go along with certain omnisexuals creating an elite group of “open minded”, “progressive” sexualities, and deeming everyone else’s orientation “closed”, “limited” or somehow “less”.You MIGHT not have gender as a large factor of your attraction. But I’m sick of the belittling, patronising, more-progressive-than-thou attitudes from some people.I am pansexual, and that isn’t a magical ability that makes me better than anyone else.

justjasper:

This is a poor answer, especially from someone running a community blog for pansexuals.

I’m pansexual, and I’m annoyed by my fellow pansexual/polysexual/multisexual etc. folks spouting off phrases such as “love should be about more than something as trivial as gender”, “I’m genderblind”, “love doesn’t see gender”. There are multiple problems with this:

Gender is important, it’s not trivial. Try telling the trans people who get fucked over by society and people who are meant to be allies that gender is trivial (read: unimportant).

While it’s true love might not be based on gender, attraction is (even if the gender isn’t based on binary criteria). That’s simple fact. Someone people are attracted to the same gender, some to the opposite, some to multiple gender presentations (also what defines “gender” and therefore attraction is different to all people). Attraction is a part of human relationships and ultimately love.

Your love isn’t better because you’re attracted to the whole spectrum. And while I’ve never seen outright hostility from pansexuals, I hate this attitude that seems to go along with certain omnisexuals creating an elite group of “open minded”, “progressive” sexualities, and deeming everyone else’s orientation “closed”, “limited” or somehow “less”.

You MIGHT not have gender as a large factor of your attraction. But I’m sick of the belittling, patronising, more-progressive-than-thou attitudes from some people.

I am pansexual, and that isn’t a magical ability that makes me better than anyone else.

(via lgbtqblogs)

Filed under pansexuality gender glbtq queer

166 notes

Julia Serano: Bisexuality does not reinforce the gender binary

genderqueer:

An extract:

“The reason why I identify as bisexual is two-fold.

First, on a physical level, the attraction that I feel toward male-bodied people feels very different to me on a visceral level than the attraction that I feel toward female-bodied people. And having sex with a female partner feels very different to me than having sex with a male partner.

Such feelings are difficult to put into words, and I am not quite sure what the source of this difference is, but presumably it is related to what makes exclusively homosexual or heterosexual people attracted to one sex or the other, but not both.

I know that some people describe themselves as pansexual, which may work well for them, but I personally am not a big fan of that label with regards to my own sexuality, as it erases the way in which my attraction toward women is different from the attraction I experience toward men (and vice versa).

The second, and far more important reason (at least for me), why I embrace the word bisexual is that people perceive me and react to me very differently depending on whether the person I am coupled with is (or appears to be) a woman or a man.

In the hetero-mainstream, when I am paired with a man, I am read as straight; when I am paired with a woman, I am read as queer. In queer settings, when I am paired with a woman, I am read as lesbian/dyke/queer and viewed as a legitimate member of the community.

But when I am paired with a man (especially when the man in question is cisgender), then I am not merely unaccepted and viewed as an outsider, but I may even be accused of buying into or reinforcing the hetero-patriarchy.

So in other words, the “bi” in bisexual does not merely refer to the types of people that I am sexual with, but to the fact that both the straight and queer worlds view me in two very different ways depending upon who I happen to be partnered with at any given moment.

This aspect of the bisexual experience is not captured by the word ‘pansexual,’ nor by the more general word ‘queer.’”

It also includes a neat history of the bi community and how it’s similar to the history of the trans movement.

(via 2w34uein-deactivated20130426)

Filed under bisexuality queer glbtq pansexuality

117 notes

Identifying yourself as pansexual isn’t an attempt to seem more intelligent, or worldly, or open minded, and it certainly isn’t about elevating oneself above other sexual orientations. It is about having a name, even a label, a part of identity which is accurate in its description of who you are and the nature your attractions and their range. Why shouldn’t people be able to claim a word that fits them?
(via pansexualflag) (via pansexualpride) (via genderqueerdukeofmexico)

Filed under pansexuality queer glbtq

52 notes

Pansexuality.

sapphrikah:

yaasmeenass:

christianaaa:

peachcity:

I don’t see the point in pansexuality. It’s pointless to me, call me ignorant but it’s as if it slightly shares the same definition as bisexual. Yes, I did google it. Apparently pansexual is someone attracted to just human beings in general, basically everything. And bisexual being that someone is attracted to both males and females.

It’s not like there’s a third gender. So what’s the point of pansexuality, you’re attracted to men and women just like a bisexual would. Maybe they’re calling the fact that someone who is bisexual may prefer one gender over the other a difference? I don’t have a problem with any type of sexuality, not even.

I just think this sexuality is pointless. 

Wow. Where do I begin?

First and foremost their are three biological sexes, male, female, and intersex so that disproves your “no third gender” idea right off the bat. Secondly, gender (different from sex) is a subjective term. Some countries believe that their are five genders, some believe three, some believe more, less, etc. Bi-gender, two-spirit, no-gender, trangender, etc., are all different variations on the idea of what “gender” is and for you to say they don’t exist is quite ignorant. I mean all you need to do is search LGBTQ on Wikipedia (which,I’m sure is where you got your definition for pansexuality) and it shows up in the related tab bar… 

But yeah, so, keeping that in mind that’s one reason why pansexuality does exist because their are more genders/sexes than just male and female. In addition to that, the idea of pansexuality elicits this notion of gender blindness that bisexuality doesn’t convey… it basically states that gender is not a priority when being attracted to the person, thus, making attraction based on the individual rather than the gender. This is something that’s not necessarily included in the textbook definition of bisexuality.

In my opinion, pansexuality needs to exist, if anything, simply based on the fact that there are people in this world that don’t identify as male or female or as just male or as just female… And keeping all that in mind, who made you the sexuality police in the first place? I mean seriously. I don’t think you’re in any position to question the legitimacy of anyone’s sexuality or identity.

It’s just wrong, point blank.

-standing ovation-

Clearly I need not add to that awesome response.

Filed under glbtq sex pansexuality queer gender