LGBTAitP #28: Come Taste the Rainbow!

[Serpentine]

I consider pansexual to be a more technically accurate synonym for bisexual, i.e. capable of falling for anyone. I would also uses omnisexual for someone who's capable of falling for everyone (Harkness) :B

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Astrella

Note that a lot of people who call themselves bisexual are 'technically pansexual'. Not everyone knows the label or wants to identify as such. The labels are pretty loose categorizations anyway and can mean different things for different people.

Yup! And all pansexuals are by definition bisexual, but not the other way around, and only really if want to argue meaningless academic trivia. Really, it's mostly for fun. If it comes to an argument I'll shrug it off; it's a convenient way of saying "I don't like boys or girls, I like people".

Originally Posted by gunnar11

I've found that sex and romance are real tight connected. As such, having a great gap between the two subjects makes me doubt. Now, you could identify it as romance-less bisexuality, or something, but I just call it being bisexual.
Maybe you can tell me a better name for what I experience?

That's true, but here is the thing. Impressions can be wrong.

The impression given is that a man is born with a penis, and a woman is born with a vagina, and that's all there is to it. But not only are people born with the wrong genitalia, some people don't really identify as man or woman at all.

Also, prevailing wisdom is that you will be sexually attracted to the people you love, but you will also be sexually attracted to people you don't love. So already the world accepts that romance and attraction are not conjoined. But because sex is so ingrained in our psyches, people just cannot wrap their heads around being able to be romantically attracted and in love with someone, and not find them sexy/hot/a turn on. But that doesn't mean it never happens, it just means that when it does happen people in general call you a liar until you ago talking about it and they feel they won, proved you were lying and reassertion their worldview.

Asexuals can fall in love. There are asexuals who find sex icky and gross an we why, there are asexuals who just aren't interested in sex but are willing as a sign of love, and there are even asexuals who indulge on occasion in the fashion of fulfilling a physical craving for a food you don't like. Although that sounds like aromantic to me, I'm just not goin to tell someone they aren't asexual. On the other end, aromantics exist, people who just don't get love. They can still have sex, or they could not. But the two are definitely separate, even of they overlap often enough to be confusing.


In the vein of complete disclosure, sexually active aromantics disturb me.

What do you mean by a good trigger? Someone who can trigger the butterflies?

Also: thanks for all the pansexual definitions

Coidzor is right. I meant just ecause you haven't fallen in love yet doesn't mean you ne'er will, you're broken and useless and you need to find someone and marry them and have kids even if you don't know if you love them and obey the mandates of culture BECAUSE SOCIETY. There is no timescale. If you Find yourself in love at 90, thats fine, even if you've never found yourself in love before that.

Trigger, specifically, is someone who triggers happy feelings. Yes.

[golentan]

So, it's disappointing to see how much trans-hate there is over on even the Queerty comments section. I may not have always seen why the need to surgically transition is so strong in so many people (truth be told it's still kind of baffling to me ) but I've never seen why people shouldn't be acknowledged for who they are, or should be shamed for it, or should have barriers erected against them. But even on a site dedicated to non-heteronormativity it seems like trans people always get the short end of the stick.

And so, to all the trans people reading this, you get big hugs. I'm right behind you.

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by golentan

So, it's disappointing to see how much trans-hate there is over on even the Queerty comments section. I may not have always seen why the need to surgically transition is so strong in so many people (truth be told it's still kind of baffling to me ) but I've never seen why people shouldn't be acknowledged for who they are, or should be shamed for it, or should have barriers erected against them. But even on a site dedicated to non-heteronormativity it seems like trans people always get the short end of the stick.

And so, to all the trans people reading this, you get big hugs. I'm right behind you.

It doesn't exactly make sense to me, either. Surgery conceptually, I have a love/hate relationship with. And having recently gone through an extended healing period with one of the cleanest breaks the doctor had seen, the recovery period kind of freaks me out. But... It feels like the right thing to do? I mean, I have a desired end result. If I'm willing to go for any amount of pain for it, I may as well get the most for my money yes?

Admittedly, the end result leaves me with some questions as well. But I've never been satisfied, merely tolerant, of what I've got already.


Oddly enough, I haven't seen any trans hate from anyone I wouldn't expect it from; the same guys who would mock redheads, blacks an homosexuals. So I probably have a painful shock coming real soon.

[Keveak]

I have always found the need for surgery in many people quite logical. Dysphoria is caused by physical traits that are wrong, so getting those traits closer to right would naturally alleviate that. It would not be the case for everybody, since identity and dysphoria are very complicated, but it does make sense that it is common.

Then again, being a trans-humanist in every sense of the word, I may or may not lack proper caution around the topic of surgery.

On romance and sexuality: Ayup, they are more of a Venn diagram than directly linked. As poor as I am at social stuff, I would be quite positive towards romance, but am very much asexual. ^_^

Nobody believes that last part, though. ;_;

[Asta Kask]

So... if straight tea is without milk and sugar, what ingredients do you have in LGBTA tea?

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

So... if straight tea is without milk and sugar, what ingredients do you have in LGBTA tea?

Sugar, spice, and everything nice?
No, wait, wrong show.

[Mystic Muse]

Originally Posted by Musashi

Sugar, spice, and everything nice?

"These were the ingredients to create the perfect little girls. But professer utonium accidentally added an extra ingredient to the concoction. Chemical X. Thus, the Powerpuff girls were born!"

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

So... if straight tea is without milk and sugar, what ingredients do you have in LGBTA tea?

I was always fond with the queer tea, bubble tea connection myself.

[Lix Lorn]

Clearly, adding chemical X to people makes them LGBTA...
this is a joke

[Lentrax]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

So... if straight tea is without milk and sugar, what ingredients do you have in LGBTA tea?

Anything and everything under the sun.

Obviously.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Lentrax

Anything and everything under the sun.

Obviously.

This Muffin seems relevant.

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

So... if straight tea is without milk and sugar, what ingredients do you have in LGBTA tea?

Whiskey and love~

Originally Posted by Coidzor

This Muffin seems relevant.

I love that comic. That guy is awesome.

[Asta Kask]

Shouldn't Asexuals have nothing added to their tea? Unless they're romantics of some sort, in which case I have to ask - what is the tea additive essence of romance?

[Lentrax]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

This Muffin seems relevant.

Its the lucky charms that give the crunch, you know?

[Keveak]

Originally Posted by Lix Lorn

Clearly, adding chemical X to people makes them LGBTA...
this is a joke

Thirty Lagerbetas that there is a Silver Age comicbook about that. ::::3
SpiderQueerKitty!

Originally Posted by Coidzor

This Muffin seems relevant.

That one comic is so adorable. ^_^

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Shouldn't Asexuals have nothing added to their tea? Unless they're romantics of some sort, in which case I have to ask - what is the tea additive essence of romance?

Chocolate, of course. Serotonin is Serotinin.

I really wish I drank tea, I want to try all these ideas. ^_^'

[golentan]

Originally Posted by Keveak

Thirty Lagerbetas that there is a Silver Age comicbook about that. ::::3
SpiderQueerKitty!

Well, in the world of comics there is always Pink Kryptonite...

That one comic is so adorable. ^_^

I know, right? And very inclusive despite the name. It's quite nice that the Cap is so pro-LGBT and perfectly secure in his masculinity.

Chocolate, of course. Serotonin is Serotinin.

I really wish I drank tea, I want to try all these ideas. ^_^'

Hmm, on the tea issue, I'd say that since we know that straight tea means without cream or sugar, Gay tea should be lemon for a little splash of the rainbow, Bi/Pan tea should be Masala Chai because it has a bit of everything, Asexual tea should probably be herbal tea (different system from other teas, it can still be straight or have anything else you wish to include to represent romantic orientation), Demi tea is like one of the others with a time release bag, Trans tea could be one of the fermented teas (it starts as one thing and then goes through a process to change into another)... Hmmm...

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Shouldn't Asexuals have nothing added to their tea? Unless they're romantics of some sort, in which case I have to ask - what is the tea additive essence of romance?

Obviously they take coffee with various degrees of chicory or mochination rather than tea.

[Saskia]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

In the vein of complete disclosure, sexually active aromantics disturb me.

Really? Do you mean that somebody who doesn't have romantic inclinations should be celibate? That seems like a strange thing to find disturbing. I'm not picking at you, I just don't understand

Originally Posted by Siuis

Oddly enough, I haven't seen any trans hate from anyone I wouldn't expect it from; the same guys who would mock redheads, blacks an homosexuals. So I probably have a painful shock coming real soon.

Maybe, but people are funny animals. As a rule once you achieve in-group status with somebody you have to really work to lose it, that matters much more than the walls that would have kept you out, and those biases will generally shift over time to justify your place in the in-group. What most of us really want is normalcy, not sameness.

What seems strange to me is that the most vehemently anti-trans people I've ever met were feminists I met in college, though most of those were the radical "let's kill all the men" types who nobody likes anyway.

Originally Posted by Coidzor

This Muffin seems relevant.

Oh my god that's so cute it hurts.

[C'nor]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

This Muffin seems relevant.

Actually, there are good reasons not to put all of that in a muffin - first, the flavors wouldn't all go together (carrot being the big one that would throw off the secondary ingredients for the other primary components), and second, the cooking times/proper temperatures would be different.

(Yes, I know that's probably not actually the point. )

[gunnar11]

Originally Posted by Saskia

Really? Do you mean that somebody who doesn't have romantic inclinations should be celibate? That seems like a strange thing to find disturbing. I'm not picking at you, I just don't understand

Don't worry, I was thinking the same.

And I'm not picking at anyone, but I do feel kind of insulted. I'm what classifies as a 'sexually active aromantic', and as such, I disturb you, SiuiS?
But if I misread, please say so, with my chaotic mind, anything is possible

[Kindablue]

Originally Posted by Saskia

Really? Do you mean that somebody who doesn't have romantic inclinations should be celibate? That seems like a strange thing to find disturbing. I'm not picking at you, I just don't understand

I always thought that being a "sexually active aromantic" was the whole point of being a twentysomething.

(Also hi! You have the best avatar!)

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Oddly enough, I haven't seen any trans hate from anyone I wouldn't expect it from; the same guys who would mock redheads, blacks an homosexuals. So I probably have a painful shock coming real soon.

Scientific skeptics tend not to coddle people who they think are deluded, and some of them don't see the evidence that gender dysphoria is any different from an eating disorder; they think it can be fixed in a few months with some counseling sessions and a support group, and that transitioning is just people not accepting who they really are. I wouldn't even call it a prevalent opinion among skeptics, but it is still a controversial issue in a group that tends to be very tolerant.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Saskia

Really? Do you mean that somebody who doesn't have romantic inclinations should be celibate? That seems like a strange thing to find disturbing. I'm not picking at you, I just don't understand

I think the emphasis is on the complete inability to experience love in this capacity without the (usual?) complete inability to find someone else desirable.

I have to admit, I find it to be more of a quandrary than what gives rise to asexual or transsexual individuals.

It's different from simply not getting attached easily or having a sex life while not having really found someone that one clicked on beyond the physical.

Originally Posted by gunnar11

Don't worry, I was thinking the same.

And I'm not picking at anyone, but I do feel kind of insulted. I'm what classifies as a 'sexually active aromantic', and as such, I disturb you, SiuiS?

If you're sexually active then why did you class yourself as asexual?

Or did I miss some kind of time lapse?

Originally Posted by Kindablue

Scientific skeptics tend not to coddle people who they think are deluded, and some of them don't see the evidence that gender dysphoria is any different from an eating disorder; they think it can be fixed in a few months with some counseling sessions and a support group, and that transitioning is just people not accepting who they really are. I wouldn't even call it a prevalent opinion among skeptics, but it is still a controversial issue in a group that tends to be very tolerant.

It's awfully funny how they're skeptics and refuse to acknowledge the evidence that it doesn't work and also won't bother to look into the history of it.

You'd think half an hour's research and a good ten to fifteen minute write up would have sorted that out.

[Asta Kask]

Oh, and going out with Rosie Palm and her five daughter does not count - at least two people have to be involved.

[gunnar11]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

If you're sexually active than why did you class yourself as asexual?

Or did I miss some kind of time lapse?

First of all: Then, not than
Second: No, you didn't miss anything

And most importantly: When you're a 15 year old boy, living in The Netherlands, you don't know any more terms than hetero-, homo-, bi- and asexual. There's no 'romantics' or genderdysforsia (although I did know what genderdysforsia was, I didn't know there was hetero-, homo-, etc- romantic.)

[Nix Nihila]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

I think the emphasis is on the complete inability to experience love in this capacity without the (usual?) complete inability to find someone else desirable.

I have to admit, I find it to be more of a quandrary than what gives rise to asexual or transsexual individuals.

It's different from simply not getting attached easily or having a sex life while not having really found someone that one clicked on beyond the physical.



If you're sexually active than why did you class yourself as asexual?

Personally, I don't see how that's any more strange than someone who lusts after people who they don't love, but who has experienced romantic attraction before. But I suppose that's just me.

And I got the impression that Gunnar was attempting to convey the concept of being aromantic without knowing the word. But I will let them speak to that.

[Kindablue]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Oh, and going out with Rosie Palm and her five daughter does not count - at least two people have to be involved.

They have to be people?

[Asta Kask]

Originally Posted by Kindablue

They have to be people?

For the purposes of this thread, yes.

[gunnar11]

Originally Posted by Nix Nihila

Personally, I don't see how that's any more strange than someone who lusts after people who they don't love, but who has experienced romantic attraction before. But I suppose that's just me.

And I got the impression that Gunnar was attempting to convey the concept of being aromantic without knowing the word. But I will let them speak to that.

Exactly.

Untill 2 days ago I didn't know the word, let alone 3 years ago, when I 'declared' myself asexual.

[C'nor]

Originally Posted by gunnar11

First of all: Then, not than
Second: No, you didn't miss anything

And most importantly: When you're a 15 year old boy, living in The Netherlands, you don't know any more terms than hetero-, homo-, bi- and asexual. There's no 'romantics' or genderdysforsia (although I did know what genderdysforsia was, I didn't know there was hetero-, homo-, etc- romantic.)

You are now a victim of Muphry's Law - it's dysphoria, not dysforsia. And also, I'm pretty sure that it's just dysphoria, or at least if it is "genderdysphoria", that should be two words.