Is Pansexuality Obligatory? No but... actually yes.

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from theelectricagora.com

all 38 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 27 insightful - 2 fun27 insightful - 1 fun28 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Second, even if it’s true that most men natively have strong desires to have sex with people who have vaginas, it doesn’t follow from this that they can’t ever develop desires, perhaps even strong ones, to have sex with people who have penises (and the same goes for women). Such a preference may have to be one you’d have to work to develop (unlike, say, the desire for sugar, which comes naturally), but that would simply make it the sexual equivalent of scotch: an acquired taste.

Lord god, we're moving in the opposite direction and LGBT is leading the way.

[–]fuckupaddamsBisexual Terve 16 insightful - 8 fun16 insightful - 7 fun17 insightful - 8 fun -  (1 child)

men

People with vaginas

Where's my gun

[–]Rosefield 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

There is also people with penises & women tho. At least OP is consistent with the gender bullshit.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

So stockhold syndrome is the key to making everyone feel valid? Just force people to do something until they don't fight back?

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

If you read through the whole piece, it's not as bad as it sounds on the surface from the excerpt I copied above. However, it is clear that a fundamental value of the author is that we should only interact with others' minds and character, not in any physical terms whatsoever. So his position is fundamentally about denying physical reality.

This is a touchy subject for me because I bought into this ideology earlier in my life, causing much pain and suffering to myself and probably others. It was only when I could accept the physicality of sexual attraction and interact honestly with others in those terms that I could find happiness for myself and give happiness back to a romantic partner.

Needless to say, the whole trans phenomenon is about denying physical reality and, as such, can lead only to suffering.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

it is clear that a fundamental value of the author is that we should only interact with others' minds and character, not in any physical terms whatsoever. So his position is fundamentally about denying physical reality.

Where does he say that? He explains that viewpoint, yes, but he then spends a whole passage talking about how stupid it is to disregard someone's physicality and only date them for their personality:

But this criticism isn’t the main one I want to pursue here. Instead, I want to offer a second criticism, against what I think is the underlying position of a lot of discourse around sexuality. This is the idea that you should love people for who they are, not for what they look like. Taken to its logical conclusion, this position should condemn, not only heterosexuality or homosexuality, but also preferences for thinness, youthfulness, able-bodiedness, and so on.

Let me unpack this view a bit. On this view, a person’s physical features should be considered romantically or erotically irrelevant. Instead, you should base your romantic relationship decisions on a person’s character-traits: her honesty, his kindness, etc. Those are really the things you should love. Call this position “Mind Over Body” (MOB).

Why should I accept MOB? Don’t get me wrong, I’m attracted or repelled by a person’s character traits. But I’m also attracted or repelled by a person’s physical features too. And they’re part of people, too.

He then flips this around (Body Over Mind) and pokes holes in that too. He says if you only consider someone's physical features that's also an issue, as mind and body are BOTH necessary when it comes to attraction. I get that he spends a lot of time playing devil's advocate and explaining views that oppose his, but its pretty obvious he's not on board with the 'people, not bodies' mentality that pansexuals like to shove on everyone.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that the essay is more nuanced than is being given credit for in the OP, but I still think the author holds as a basic value that bodies shouldn't matter. He concedes that they do, but still believes that they shouldn't. I reject the whole idea from the start.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

its hearts not parts, which is an infantile way of looking at human desire.

[–]8bitgay 23 insightful - 2 fun23 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The founder of the website is on the comments disagreeing harshly with the notion that people should be all pansexual:

I am a straight man and agree with you entirely. The whole idea of policing sexuality in this way is repugnant. [...] Women and lesbians are never wrong in asserting and enforcing their sexual boundaries.

I think it is precisely about violating lesbians’ boundaries. This why I find it so distasteful. I also agree that self-id represents a deformation of individualism, which is why I argued that trans ideology is inconsistent with traditional civil rights.

In an article of his own the founder of the site seems to be fairly pro-LGB:

For to assert one’s right to be exclusively same-sex attracted and to pursue exclusively same-sex relationships, today, is alleged by identificationists as being, at best, a kind of genital-fetishism and at worst, outright bigotry.

To be honest my first reaction reading the article linked here was to find it awful. Skimming through it, there are many parts that seem to defend anti-LGB ideas. But giving it a more careful read now, you can see that it was written more in a way of first playing devil's advocate and showing the usual arguments of TRAs, to then deconstruct and criticize these arguments.

Some of the writer points also align a lot with pro-LGB views:

It’s one thing to tell schoolchildren that they shouldn’t be mean to their gay or trans classmates. It’s quite another to tell them that they shouldn’t be mean to their gay or trans classmates, and, by the way, not being willing to have sex with them is being mean to them.

The writer still seems to concede with TRAs in some points, though. And I think he spends so much time playing devil's advocate his actual points get a bit lost in the middle. But frankly, I'd recommend giving the article a longer read.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thank you. I was starting to think I was going insane reading the comments here. I was like did we read the same article??

[–]8bitgay 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah, I can understand how people got this impression. The writer used a big part of his article to play devil's advocate, so if you skim through it you can easily get the wrong idea.

But I think it's important we take care to see what people are really saying. We already have few allies. I've never seen this site before today, but it seems like their viewpoint in this question is pro-LGB. Here is another article they published last month:

If we can’t use the word ‘sex’ to define the kind of discrimination we experience as gay men, lesbians, and women in general, we can’t protect our rights or even discuss them.

In this cultural context, biological sex is seen as unimportant or old-fashioned. “Gender identity” overrides all. These beliefs effectively erase women and same-sex attracted people, who lose the right to name oppressive systems.

“Hate” is framed largely in terms of protected characteristics, which include gender and gender-identity but not sex. These vague words obscure the facts of sex and sex-based oppression and silence those – especially women – who want to discuss these issues.

By the way, I'm not American, so I'm far from familiar with American laws. But going by this article it seems like it's legal in California to call someone by homophobic slurs, while misgendering can get you a fine. Is this an accurate view? If so, this seems really troubling.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But I think it's important we take care to see what people are really saying.

Agreed. The comments on this thread bothered me because it reminded me a lot of the TRA outrage against JKR. People giving the situation a cursory look (or not looking at all) and jumping immediately to being upset without actually taking the time to read and interpret what she said. This article isn't pro-pansexuality. Almost everything after the highlighted bit is a criticism of how wokesters try to make being pansexual compulsory.

I'm not familiar with California laws, but I Googled it and it does appear that a law punishing 'misgendering' with fines and jail time was passed in 2018. Some sources say it had been challenged though. I agree it's very distressing, but unsurprising unfortunately. I'm not sure if there are any similar penalties for actual hate speech such as homophobic slurs.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But going by this article it seems like it's legal in California to call someone by homophobic slurs, while misgendering can get you a fine. Is this an accurate view?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-california-law-allows-jail-time-for-using-wrong-gender-pronoun-sponsor-denies-that-would-happen

"The sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, has argued adamantly that nobody is going to be criminally prosecuted for using the wrong pronoun."

Twat.

Anyhow, it won't hold up to our federal constitution. The government can't compel speech under our 1st amendment. You would however, to have this case heard; have to be prosecuted for it to challenge it. There are a series of courts that would conceivably strike down that section of the law before it got to our top court (who don't always have their heads screwed on straight and have been pretty idiotic on gender/sex issues in Bostock and are legislating from the bench.)

[–]Finnegan7921 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This guy should test his theory by pressuring some straight men into being pansexual. I wonder how that will turn out. "At least pressure them"....there's a term for that and it is SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

[–]julesburm1891 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Oddly enough, I happen to know a lot of black women and Asian men in real life. I’m absolutely certain every single one of them would die of shame before publishing some whining, convoluted piece about how people should force themselves to sleep with them. That probably has something to do with the fact that all the black women and Asian men I know are capable and well-adjusted adults, not sniveling, homophobic incels.

[–]censorshipment 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm black (and obese) and have never whined about anyone not wanting to date me. Maybe because there are plenty of people who have wanted to date me, so I've never felt undesirable. I live in the Southeast where the black population and obese population are the highest, so I don't feel like an unwanted/unattractive minority. If I lived on the West Coast or in the Pacific Northwest, I'd likely have low self-esteem though. Location is very important.

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Am I reading this wrong? It looks to me like the author is condemning the idea that everyone should be pansexual. He spends a lot of time outlining the 'logic' behind forced pansexuality before dismantling it and calling it absurd. The highlighted bit reads more to me like he's repeating how wokesters think for the sake of argument before calling it 'the worst kind of social engineering' in the next paragraph. He even ends the article like this.

But my general instinct is that I’m loathe to tell people whom they should and shouldn’t find attractive. Though it’s prima facie plausible that casting your net wider than your current sexual preferences will make it easier to find someone to love, I think what’s likelier to happen is that you’ll waste a lot of time trying to be with people whom you end up not that happy with. It’s difficult enough to find a good life-partner. We shouldn’t make it harder.

It doesn't look like he's saying pansexuality is obligatory. He's agreeing that trying to make it obligatory is ridiculous.

[–]mvmlego 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, I agree with you. It's pretty standard to begin philosophy papers by explaining the thing you're about to debunk. He could have done a better job distinguishing the times that he was citing others ideas (i.e. TQ+ beliefs about obligatory pansexuality) from the times that he was proposing his own ideas (the problems with obligatory pansexuality). Still, it seemed pretty clear to me by halfway through the article that he isn't actually doing what the OP is claiming, as your excerpt demonstrates.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. Sure, he could've I guess put quotes around opposing claims or italicized them maybe. But as you said, it's pretty clear he's not saying what everyone thinks he's saying. He states as much in several places throughout the article. Literally the very next line after the highlighted portion is "I offer two objections against compromising pansexualism" where he then proceeds to spend the rest of the article talking about how ridiculous it is.

[–]censorshipment 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Although I get it, it's the pressure part that's sickening. Should we all be less prejudice / have broader preferences? Sure. But we shouldn't browbeat anyone. I personally wish I didn't have such a strong attraction to older women (Gen X, 70s babies are my absolute favorite) because so many younger women have expressed interest in me, but I don't want to date Gen Zers nor younger millennials at all. I wish I didn't have such a strong dislike for women under 40. Lol

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

So at this point all sexualities and sexual preferences are bigoted? I can't be attracted to hairy, muscular men and not twinks, I can't even be attracted to men and not all women anymore.

If there's one thing that needed to be canceled by Twitter's cancel culture other than itself, it's anyone who agrees with this article

[–]mvmlego 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The author never said that orientations other than pansexuality were bigoted, though. He explained how more widespread pansexuality (and broader dating preferences in general) could be beneficial to certain groups, but he pretty clearly denounced the idea of morally obligatory pansexuality in the last half of the essay.

[–]Socialjustus 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Were this socially acceptable (and it may be, actually, in most of the country), then black women and Asian men would find themselves at a disadvantage in the dating market

Jesus, this reads like a redpill neckbeard manifesto; they even used the word "dating market". Do they have no sense of irony over pushing the idea that people "deserve" sex?

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is so sick.

[–]ThiccDropkickGay 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Of course nobody says you have to be pansexual, but being pan makes me a better person than you

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"I'm not saying you have to obey me, just that you're a terrible person who is literally murdering people and actually deserves to die a horrible death if you don't obey me, a perfect specimem of the next generation of human evolution for having adopted this lifestyle"

[–]mvmlego 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I feel like either I'm missing something big, or the OP is. The author, Robert Gressis, does begin the article by laying out a case for encouraging pansexuality, but then he spends the last 60% of the article objecting to it.

[–]Seahorse 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's interesting to see these mental gymnastics pieces to do with sexuality.

Trans literature seems to be overwhelmingly dominated by "Why can't I get a date" articles, studies and blogs.

I've noticed this since becoming gender critical years and years ago.

They can invent new words, poison academia, social media and sports but they can't force individuals to have sex with them.

And they never will.

This seems to be fairly sensible but it's still ridiculous that it needs to be said. (As one commenter on the article put it).