LGBTAitp - Part Fifteen

[Yora]

Since I'm not heterosexual, there will always be some people who don't like that. I really don't feel like I have worry at all what those idiots think of me. There are plenty of other things that could have them regard me as someone who is stupid, out of touch with society, or incapable to fit with the in-crowd. Being ostracised as a geek is a much bigger problem in actual every-day life than a minor fact that 99% of all people I've ever have to deal with never will know about.
Maybe it's the fact that I've always lived at the fringe of society that being considered queer does not bother me at all. That's life, you can't make everyone like you and there's no reason why that would even be desirable. However, if you're a more extraverted and have always identified yourself by the role you have in relation to other people in your social, I guess that could be a major problem for a person.

And any person who is not at ease with all potential forms of sexual orientation wouldn't be a potential partner for me to begin with. They could also say that regular church visists are important to them, or that they are members of the conservative party, or have a dislike for science-fiction. All those things would not stop me from being a friend with such people (and I have some like that), but that flat out answers any questions about a possible relationship. (With a "no".)

I much rather live with being happy about my identity and enjoying what I am. There are always some people who think I'm weird anyway.

[Coidzor]

Well, yeah. But in this case, her choice of "less hurtful" thing to say was "You're not a woman".

That's only if one is going to be viewing it so that they can deliberately paint themselves out as a victim.

Hell, how is the object of desire supposed to know one way or the other? How are we supposed to know what this hypothetical woman knows one way or the other?

"You don't fit my criteria for a lover" is never fun to hear, but going that far without it being made explicitly an anti-trans slur is the same as going through life & deliberately setting up one's self for disappointment at every turn.

My issue is something like this: Is it really that hard to leave it at "no"? Or are guys really so pushy that you need to head off the inevitable "Why not?" before it's even asked?

Capriciousness, not pushiness. Going through the dictionary definitions were an act of whimsy. Though, I suppose, you could also take them as an invitation to show if you were using an alternate definition.

[Partysan]

Since I'm not heterosexual, there will always be some people who don't like that. I really don't feel like I have worry at all what those idiots think of me. There are plenty of other things that could have them regard me as someone who is stupid, out of touch with society, or incapable to fit with the in-crowd. Being ostracised as a geek is a much bigger problem in actual every-day life than a minor fact that 99% of all people I've ever have to deal with never will know about.
Maybe it's the fact that I've always lived at the fringe of society that being considered queer does not bother me at all. That's life, you can't make everyone like you and there's no reason why that would even be desirable. However, if you're a more extraverted and have always identified yourself by the role you have in relation to other people in your social, I guess that could be a major problem for a person.

And any person who is not at ease with all potential forms of sexual orientation wouldn't be a potential partner for me to begin with. They could also say that regular church visists are important to them, or that they are members of the conservative party, or have a dislike for science-fiction. All those things would not stop me from being a friend with such people (and I have some like that), but that flat out answers any questions about a possible relationship. (With a "no".)

I much rather live with being happy about my identity and enjoying what I am. There are always some people who think I'm weird anyway.

Greatly said. I aree with you on pretty much everything there, only that I probably would be able to have a relationship with someone who dislikes science-fiction even though I like it myself. I even did have a relationship with an altar girl. Her church membership/my atheism (and her getting up early on sundays for church and inevitably waking me) did put a little strain on our relationship, but the fact that she didn't actually believe what her church preached made it possible.

A little problem I see though is a (very) few of my male friends seemingly being at unease because they somehow fear me sexually. It isn't strong enough to really do anything. But I'm pretty sure it's there. Whyever that is, some heterosexual males somehow fear proximity to men who aren't 100% heterosexual. As if I'd somehow come on to them. Baka.

Well, I have in time developed a certain pride in being different. I guess that's good, since even my close friends regard me as an absolute and utter freak (not because of my sexuality though). But they still love me When still in school some guy called the attitude my friends and I had "Randgruppensnobismus" (fringe group snobbery) Maybe he was right.

But I'm babbling. YAY Pansexuals!

And Yora, if I might inquire, where in Germany do you live? I hope you manage to steer clear of the blacklands

[Dogmantra]

oh just FYI I agree mostly too

I'm just in a depressing mood at the moment for some reason. Don't want pages and pages of arguments resulting of a misunderstanding.

[Gardener]

That's only if one is going to be viewing it so that they can deliberately paint themselves out as a victim.

Hell, how is the object of desire supposed to know one way or the other? How are we supposed to know what this hypothetical woman knows one way or the other?

"You don't fit my criteria for a lover" is never fun to hear, but going that far without it being made explicitly an anti-trans slur is the same as going through life & deliberately setting up one's self for disappointment at every turn.

Awkward metaphor time!

Someone kicks a football. It happens to hit you in the face. Is it setting yourself up as a victim to say "That hurt, and I wish that football had been kicked somewhere else."? Not to call them out for kicking footballs somewhere inappropriate, just wishing that it hadn't happened to intersect with your face.

Don't worry about it too much. I was mostly just venting.

Capriciousness, not pushiness. Going through the dictionary definitions were an act of whimsy. Though, I suppose, you could also take them as an invitation to show if you were using an alternate definition.

Actually, that wasn't aimed at you. The dictionary definitions were fine - I was more meaning why people can't seem to leave it at "No, I don't want you as a lover". I know it hurts, but all the walking on eggshells around it seems to just hurt more.

[Partysan]

I'm just in a depressing mood at the moment for some reason.

Sorry to hear that. *opens arms* Hug?

[Coidzor]

A little problem I see though is a (very) few of my male friends seemingly being at unease because they somehow fear me sexually. It isn't strong enough to really do anything. But I'm pretty sure it's there. Whyever that is, some heterosexual males somehow fear proximity to men who aren't 100% heterosexual. As if I'd somehow come on to them. Baka.

Well, men are men, regardless of who they want to stick their bits in. So in certain contexts, even the perception of the possibility of losing the male privilege of being at risk of losing a kidney at worse if they become drugged or otherwise insensible can be a bit... jarring to one's worldview. Most individuals are at least peripherally aware of the capacity for sexual evil that is done... hmm, how best to put this? ...casually... in such and such a context. Most typically by men.

Or, more simply, men are still men. Men = sexual predators, even if you're taking away the whole sexual misconduct angle and just go by the "men are the pursuers and initiators of relationships" angle, and so are not to be pursued like prey. And, like to the hunter who suddenly becomes aware that he has become the hunted, there does seem to be a readily apparent possibility of a sinking feeling wherein one realizes that one is possible prey.

[Lix Lorn]

oh just FYI I agree mostly too

I'm just in a depressing mood at the moment for some reason. Don't want pages and pages of arguments resulting of a misunderstanding.

Ugh, seconded.

Sorry to hear that. *opens arms* Hug?

Let's second that too. Three way hug?

[Partysan]

So in certain contexts, even the perception of the possibility of losing the male privilege of being at risk of losing a kidney at worse if they become drugged or otherwise insensible can be a bit... jarring to one's worldview.

What a sentence. I had to read it thrice. And I can read Kant.

Or, more simply, men are still men. Men = sexual predators, even if you're taking away the whole sexual misconduct angle and just go by the "men are the pursuers and initiators of relationships" angle, and so are not to be pursued like prey. And, like to the hunter who suddenly becomes aware that he has become the hunted, there does seem to be a readily apparent possibility of a sinking feeling wherein one realizes that one is possible prey.

That I can understand. Even though I regard the perception of men necessarily being the hunting part as silly.

[Coidzor]

What a sentence. I had to read it thrice. And I can read Kant.

Yeah... <_< >_>

That I can understand. Even though I regard the perception of men necessarily being the hunting part as silly.

Maybe that'll change, maybe it's already changed in certain places. Around here, however, it does seem to be quite prevalent as far as expressed viewpoints go.

[Heliomance]

*Heliomance is happy, for Heliomance has a probably girlfriend*

I realise this doesn't strictly belong here, but I hang out with you guys a lot more than the RWA crowd.

[golentan]

Gratz helio. Having recently been in the same boat, I have no objections to you sharing the news here and I doubt others would.

Umm... I have a totally not board safe situation that's likely to come up soon and would like some advice if someone would be willing to talk to me about it.

Edit: Thanks for the PMs. I've messaged back.

[Dogmantra]

it is half past four in the morning

and my mind has decided that Dr Androgynous is the best superhero name possible

quick, someone make a comic before I do

[Qaera]

it is half past four in the morning

and my mind has decided that Dr Androgynous is the best superhero name possible

quick, someone make a comic before I do

Spoiler

Show

~ ♅

[Skeppio]

Spoiler

Show

*snip*

~ ♅

You are now my hero, AThousandWords.

[Qaera]

You are now my hero, AThousandWords.

Yay ^^

Spoiler

Show

~ ♅

[Dogmantra]

is it a bird (as in an objectifying name for a female)? is it a man (pronounced to rhyme with plane so that this reference works)? no, it's Dr Androgynous!

But really

What are the good doctor's powers, some sort of androgyniser ray or does (s)he just have an androgynous motif, like Batman has a bat motif? Preferred pronoun, if any? THESE QUESTIONS ARE KEEPING ME UP.

[Serpentine]

So is their archnemesis Professor Heteronormative?

[Qaera]

is it a bird (as in an objectifying name for a female)? is it a man (pronounced to rhyme with plane so that this reference works)? no, it's Dr Androgynous!

But really

What are the good doctor's powers, some sort of androgyniser ray or does (s)he just have an androgynous motif, like Batman has a bat motif? Preferred pronoun, if any? THESE QUESTIONS ARE KEEPING ME UP.

Yes.

Spoiler

Show

~ ♅

[golentan]

So is their archnemesis Professor Heteronormative?

I think that has to be. Contractual obligation.

[Coidzor]

I think that has to be. Contractual obligation.

Ahh, the contractual obligation, the real greatest power of them all in the super biz.

Yay ^^

Spoiler

Show

-snip-

~ ♅

GHOST BABBY! Or possibly Giygas...@_@

[turkishproverb]

GHOST BABBY! Or possibly Giygas...@_@

It's lines like this that make you so cute.

[Castaras]

My issue is something like this: Is it really that hard to leave it at "no"? Or are guys really so pushy that you need to head off the inevitable "Why not?" before it's even asked?

There'll always be a "Why?" in the question. It's nice to know an answer, even if it's not the truthful one. For me, I just go for "I'm not interested in dating at the moment." Which, currently, is true. And... then if things get more complicated, I just go with another truth. Hooray for being blunt.

[Coidzor]

It's lines like this that make you so cute.

No, no, I'm pretty sure it's my fluffiness. Which is growing ever more so. ...Unfortunately I need to find some kind of frizz-fighting agent, but I can't remember if it's shampoo or conditioner or both that factor more into that or if I need some kind of after washing product and omfgswatabhasdfhtagndaz-@_@ *falls over and starts twitching*

[LaZodiac]

Yes.

Spoiler

Show

~ ♅

Well see now, when you make stuff like that, you'd asking for people to force you to do it regularly. Get to yonder Comic subforum!

[turkishproverb]

No, no, I'm pretty sure it's my fluffiness. Which is growing ever more so. ...Unfortunately I need to find some kind of frizz-fighting agent, but I can't remember if it's shampoo or conditioner or both that factor more into that or if I need some kind of after washing product and omfgswatabhasdfhtagndaz-@_@ *falls over and starts twitching*

*hugles* i'ts ok. Both, I think. just remember, you condition AFTER you shampoo.

[Mina Kobold]

Wait, if Doctor Androgynous is a superhero, does that mean they have a sidekick? And what would that sidekick be named?

Laser-Gun Boxing Tiger?

Isaac Nietche?

Prism?

Rainbow Kid?

Tell me! I have to know! You can't deny a toddler Kobold's request!

[turkishproverb]

Fine.

It's Chuck.

[Yora]

Greatly said. I aree with you on pretty much everything there, only that I probably would be able to have a relationship with someone who dislikes science-fiction even though I like it myself. I even did have a relationship with an altar girl. Her church membership/my atheism (and her getting up early on sundays for church and inevitably waking me) did put a little strain on our relationship, but the fact that she didn't actually believe what her church preached made it possible.

I think it depends a lot on how you define your relationship. I know a lot of couples who have seperate circles of friends and pursue different hobbies. I think in past generations, that was actually the default model for a relationship.
But as a friend of mine once said "Your partner has to be your best friend". Of course it does not have to be this way, but this is one model for a relationship, and frankly the only one I'm interested in. In this age, I don't need a relationship to run the household, and I don't need one to have financial security. I don't even need one for my social standing. And I feel I also don't need a relationship for my sexual needs either.
Which leaves the primary reason to have a relationship at spending a lot of my free time together with someone who shares my interests. The last woman I was interested in was really nice, and I liked her a lot and she also enjoyed the time together, but we really didn't share any interests at all. So I didn't pursue it any further and we just remained good friends at university.

Well, I have in time developed a certain pride in being different. I guess that's good, since even my close friends regard me as an absolute and utter freak (not because of my sexuality though). But they still love me When still in school some guy called the attitude my friends and I had "Randgruppensnobismus" (fringe group snobbery) Maybe he was right.

That certainly is the case.
There is a clear sense of superiority in following the current view of gender equality to its logical conclusion. Almost everyone (publically) agrees that men and women have equal rights, can achieve the same things, and everyone is free in their sexual preferences. As a pansexual, you can tell yourself "Look at me, I don't just think it, I also feel it. I don't let sex or gender interfere with how I see a persons personalty." Heterosexuals are merely people who can't shake the prejudices they grew up with, even though they know they are wrong. And not to be offensive to anyone, but from that perspective homosexuality is just a mystery. If you overcome the heteronormative prejudices, why would you limit your attraction to a specific gender? Of course it's a completely valid orientation and for example not being attracked to men is not more unusual than not being attracted to skinny people or to short people. But from a pansexual perspective, it's kind of puzzling. It's very easy to slip into a feeling of superiority.
Though maybe that's just a natural defensive mechanism? I've heard that there are are homosexuals who claim bi-/pan-sexuality does not exist. It's a lot easier to cope with discrimination when you can see yourself as superior, because that makes all naysayers wrong by default. All criticism and objection is automatically reduced to stupidity.

[Partysan]

I think it depends a lot on how you define your relationship. I know a lot of couples who have seperate circles of friends and pursue different hobbies. I think in past generations, that was actually the default model for a relationship.
But as a friend of mine once said "Your partner has to be your best friend". Of course it does not have to be this way, but this is one model for a relationship, and frankly the only one I'm interested in. In this age, I don't need a relationship to run the household, and I don't need one to have financial security. I don't even need one for my social standing. And I feel I also don't need a relationship for my sexual needs either.
Which leaves the primary reason to have a relationship at spending a lot of my free time together with someone who shares my interests. The last woman I was interested in was really nice, and I liked her a lot and she also enjoyed the time together, but we really didn't share any interests at all. So I didn't pursue it any further and we just remained good friends at university.

You are right in your basic premise: Your partner should be your best friend or at least qualified to be a very very good one. And I also agree that this requires a certain amount of shared interests and opinions.
However, I don't see how one single point of imperfection somehow destroys this qualification. Sure, there are things, like belief in certain religions, that imply opinions which will repel a lot of people, including me. But I have more than one hobby, and for my partner not to share one of them, even if it is one of my favourites, is not an instant out for me. Now you said you didn't share any interests at all, that's different. But, just for an example, none of my friends, not even the best ones share my passion for martial arts. It's a tragedy for me, but it doesn't impede the friendship (that much).
I think it is sufficient for a partner to share some interests. Then you can spend time together and have something to talk. Of course it would be perfect to have close to the same hobbies, but I'm not sure I can ever find someone like that (who I also have to find attractive, mind you).
That, the fact that I have no qualms about having sex with people who are "just" friends (they do, sadly) and finally the fact that you can't actually choose whom you fall for, let your views seem a bit extreme to me. Somehow correct, but extreme. It's like a scientific postulation if a soulmate. I don't believe in souls, only in mates.
And sure, when the infatuation period ends you might fall apart from someone who you don't share enough interests with. But those ~2 years probably were a blast.

That certainly is the case.
There is a clear sense of superiority in following the current view of gender equality to its logical conclusion. Almost everyone (publically) agrees that men and women have equal rights, can achieve the same things, and everyone is free in their sexual preferences. As a pansexual, you can tell yourself "Look at me, I don't just think it, I also feel it. I don't let sex or gender interfere with how I see a persons personalty." Heterosexuals are merely people who can't shake the prejudices they grew up with, even though they know they are wrong. And not to be offensive to anyone, but from that perspective homosexuality is just a mystery. If you overcome the heteronormative prejudices, why would you limit your attraction to a specific gender? Of course it's a completely valid orientation and for example not being attracked to men is not more unusual than not being attracted to skinny people or to short people. But from a pansexual perspective, it's kind of puzzling. It's very easy to slip into a feeling of superiority.
Though maybe that's just a natural defensive mechanism? I've heard that there are are homosexuals who claim bi-/pan-sexuality does not exist. It's a lot easier to cope with discrimination when you can see yourself as superior, because that makes all naysayers wrong by default. All criticism and objection is automatically reduced to stupidity.

As far as my beliefs go you can't choose your sexuality. Thus, while I find Pansexuality to be the best possible form known to me, I can hardly fault others for not being the same, when attraction is largely biological.
I can however fault them for not understanding it, because, as you said, it is only a logical conclusion of full equality.The pansexual perspective is not that hard to understand, and people who still negate pan-/bisexuals are wilfully ignorant. I think, everyone could be pansexual in a theoretical sense, even if their actual attractions are gender-sorted.
I only think that though, I don't say it
As far as your "natural defense mechanism" hypothesis goes, I think it can be upgraded to a theory. When people are ostracised it's a big hit to their self-esteem, and to assign a feeling of superiority to beinng different fills that gap again and thus protects a healthy self-image.