![lampfaced:
biopoesis:
lampfaced:
thekingdomofarthur:
littlemotherfucker:
hopespuppeteer:
vodkaplz:
the-unpopular-opinions:
Anon.
Don’t you dare tell me that I am overreacting. My own best friend doesn’t think my sexuality exists. You don’t have to like that I’m pansexual, but don’t act like I’m such a bisexual hipster or whatever kind of crap because I’m not.
FUCKING THIS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^
My parents don’t believe in pan or bisexuality and that hurts ‘cause now I can never tell them.
I’ve never actually had anyone being rude because I am pan, then normally just AWW over it… if this actually happening?!
D: I am so glad I’ve never gotten mistreated because of it.
I’ve seen people treated like this about being asexual, too. I’ve told a total of two people close to me that I’m asexual, and they didn’t make a big deal out of it at all, which I’m extremely grateful for; but I am so scared of directly telling anyone else, because I’m afraid I’ll get treated like this.
Also, this reminds me of the time I was arguing with my mother that pansexuals are not the same thing as bisexuals. And it does not mean they’re looking at literally everyone and wanting to sleep with them.
I am pan but I think this is bullshit.
You know what’s really annoying? Oppression Olympics. “[This/that/my] sexual orientation/gender identity/favorite kind of soup totally has it worse than [this/these] other one[s], u guise”. Fuck you and fuck that attitude.
((This post talks about “loving” someone regardless of biological sex or gender, anyway, which is panromantic and says nothing of primary sexual attraction. But putting that aside for a moment -))
I also dislike the implication than pansexual people “care more about someone’s personality and heart more than the body” more than non-pansexual people. “Pansexual” just means someone has the potential/capacity to be romantically/sexually attracted to people of all biological sexes and gender identities. That’s it. That’s all. It doesn’t automatically mean that pan people only care about or are much more concerned about personality and what’s between someone’s ears or that sex and gender are totally irrelevant to them [it can be the case, but it’s not because someone’s pan] - that’s gender-blind, not pan. Pan people can have preferences. Some pan people couldn’t give two fucks about “personality and heart”.
It’s an insidious sentiment [to me], because it seems to imply that pan people are better than non-pan people [because of this capacity that they have been born with] and that pansexuality is the morally superior orientation to have [because ’people of other orientations totally care about primitive things like what the body of their potential partners may be like while we, the pansexuals, loftily do not concern ourselves with such basal things and instead value a person’s substance - we are so much better because we care only about what’s on the inside, someone’s inner beauty - while non-pansexual people are totally preoccupied with gender and biological sex and peoples’ bodies and what’s on the outside’. Right]. I dislike the implication that being sexually oriented towards people of certain sex[es] and/or gender[s] means that non-pansexual people are shallow and care more about the body than about personality and heart. :/ There is nothing wrong with only being sexually/romantically oriented towards certain sex[es] and/or gender[s]. It doesn’t mean someone doesn’t care about “personality and heart”, and it’s just the way they are. Only being sexually attracted to certain sex[es] and/or gender[s] doesn’t mean that someone cares more about the body than what’s inside - being physically unable to be sexually attracted to all sexes and genders doesn’t mean someone cares more about the outside than the inside. There is something really wrong with the idea that someone not being pan automatically means that they put the body before “personality and heart”.
Many non-pan people care more about “personality and heart” more than “the body”. Many non-pan people care more about what’s inside than what’s on the outside of a person. Some pan people care more about the body than “personality and heart”. Whether someone cares more about the inside or the outside doesn’t come from their sexual orientation, it comes from who they are as a person. Whether or not you’re shallow has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There are gay people who care more about personality than the outside and there are gay people who care more about the outside than personality. Same goes for pan people. Being pan doesn’t magically confer upon someone the status of caring more about what’s inside.
Pan people definitely do sometimes experience invisibility, discrimination [etc]. But “oh they think I am so awful and I am so victimized just because I’m on this moral high ground of caring more about personality and what’s inside than about bodies and what’s outside” is so prissy and whiny. You may care more about what’s on the inside, and that’s great. But it isn’t because you’re pan, it doesn’t mean all pan people are this way, it doesn’t mean that being pan makes you a better person and it certainly doesn’t mean that non-pansexual [gay, straight, bisexual, whatever] people automatically must care about the exterior more than what’s inside just because they’re sexually oriented towards certain sex[es] and/or gender[s].
Bisexual [you see some bisexuals doing this too, it’s not just pansexuals] and pansexual superiority needs to die.
rambly, but whatever
After reblogging I started wondering to myself about the OP and.. thought it sounded more panromantic in description than anything else, when they stated they cared more about “the personality and heart”. Or that it could apply to any __-romantic identity. That aside! I really enjoyed reading your post and agree with everything you’ve said. Especially the last paragraph.
I agree that there needs to stop being a superiority complex among the LGBT community. Not just bi or pan (my girlfriend jokes about pan superiority a lot but it’s not a serious sentiment). I have seen so many gay people that take the stance that “you kids are just confused, you’re REALLY lesbian or gay” which is just as bad as straight people doing the same thing.
A persons sexuality is something that, in the end, only they can define.
Also, we need to stop thinking that just because someone is LGBT they’re automatically open minded. It really doesn’t work that way. Plenty of people in the community are close minded towards other sections and that’s not right.
I might not be able to full grasp what it would be to be, say, asexual but does that mean that I’ll cast judgement on them and say they don’t exist? No. Not at all.
In the end I’ve never understood the superiority complex because we’re all fighting for rights, we’re fighting to be known and understood, we’re all part of the same issue in the end.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwrum9DWKS1qj7gpko1_500.png)
Anon.
Don’t you dare tell me that I am overreacting. My own best friend doesn’t think my sexuality exists. You don’t have to like that I’m pansexual, but don’t act like I’m such a bisexual hipster or whatever kind of crap because I’m not.
FUCKING THIS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^
My parents don’t believe in pan or bisexuality and that hurts ‘cause now I can never tell them.
I’ve never actually had anyone being rude because I am pan, then normally just AWW over it… if this actually happening?!
D: I am so glad I’ve never gotten mistreated because of it.
I’ve seen people treated like this about being asexual, too. I’ve told a total of two people close to me that I’m asexual, and they didn’t make a big deal out of it at all, which I’m extremely grateful for; but I am so scared of directly telling anyone else, because I’m afraid I’ll get treated like this.
Also, this reminds me of the time I was arguing with my mother that pansexuals are not the same thing as bisexuals. And it does not mean they’re looking at literally everyone and wanting to sleep with them.
I am pan but I think this is bullshit.
You know what’s really annoying? Oppression Olympics. “[This/that/my] sexual orientation/gender identity/favorite kind of soup totally has it worse than [this/these] other one[s], u guise”. Fuck you and fuck that attitude.
((This post talks about “loving” someone regardless of biological sex or gender, anyway, which is panromantic and says nothing of primary sexual attraction. But putting that aside for a moment -))
I also dislike the implication than pansexual people “care more about someone’s personality and heart more than the body” more than non-pansexual people. “Pansexual” just means someone has the potential/capacity to be romantically/sexually attracted to people of all biological sexes and gender identities. That’s it. That’s all. It doesn’t automatically mean that pan people only care about or are much more concerned about personality and what’s between someone’s ears or that sex and gender are totally irrelevant to them [it can be the case, but it’s not because someone’s pan] - that’s gender-blind, not pan. Pan people can have preferences. Some pan people couldn’t give two fucks about “personality and heart”.
It’s an insidious sentiment [to me], because it seems to imply that pan people are better than non-pan people [because of this capacity that they have been born with] and that pansexuality is the morally superior orientation to have [because ’people of other orientations totally care about primitive things like what the body of their potential partners may be like while we, the pansexuals, loftily do not concern ourselves with such basal things and instead value a person’s substance - we are so much better because we care only about what’s on the inside, someone’s inner beauty - while non-pansexual people are totally preoccupied with gender and biological sex and peoples’ bodies and what’s on the outside’. Right]. I dislike the implication that being sexually oriented towards people of certain sex[es] and/or gender[s] means that non-pansexual people are shallow and care more about the body than about personality and heart. :/ There is nothing wrong with only being sexually/romantically oriented towards certain sex[es] and/or gender[s]. It doesn’t mean someone doesn’t care about “personality and heart”, and it’s just the way they are. Only being sexually attracted to certain sex[es] and/or gender[s] doesn’t mean that someone cares more about the body than what’s inside - being physically unable to be sexually attracted to all sexes and genders doesn’t mean someone cares more about the outside than the inside. There is something really wrong with the idea that someone not being pan automatically means that they put the body before “personality and heart”.
Many non-pan people care more about “personality and heart” more than “the body”. Many non-pan people care more about what’s inside than what’s on the outside of a person. Some pan people care more about the body than “personality and heart”. Whether someone cares more about the inside or the outside doesn’t come from their sexual orientation, it comes from who they are as a person. Whether or not you’re shallow has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There are gay people who care more about personality than the outside and there are gay people who care more about the outside than personality. Same goes for pan people. Being pan doesn’t magically confer upon someone the status of caring more about what’s inside.
Pan people definitely do sometimes experience invisibility, discrimination [etc]. But “oh they think I am so awful and I am so victimized just because I’m on this moral high ground of caring more about personality and what’s inside than about bodies and what’s outside” is so prissy and whiny. You may care more about what’s on the inside, and that’s great. But it isn’t because you’re pan, it doesn’t mean all pan people are this way, it doesn’t mean that being pan makes you a better person and it certainly doesn’t mean that non-pansexual [gay, straight, bisexual, whatever] people automatically must care about the exterior more than what’s inside just because they’re sexually oriented towards certain sex[es] and/or gender[s].
Bisexual [you see some bisexuals doing this too, it’s not just pansexuals] and pansexual superiority needs to die.
rambly, but whatever
After reblogging I started wondering to myself about the OP and.. thought it sounded more panromantic in description than anything else, when they stated they cared more about “the personality and heart”. Or that it could apply to any __-romantic identity. That aside! I really enjoyed reading your post and agree with everything you’ve said. Especially the last paragraph.
I agree that there needs to stop being a superiority complex among the LGBT community. Not just bi or pan (my girlfriend jokes about pan superiority a lot but it’s not a serious sentiment). I have seen so many gay people that take the stance that “you kids are just confused, you’re REALLY lesbian or gay” which is just as bad as straight people doing the same thing.
A persons sexuality is something that, in the end, only they can define.
Also, we need to stop thinking that just because someone is LGBT they’re automatically open minded. It really doesn’t work that way. Plenty of people in the community are close minded towards other sections and that’s not right.
I might not be able to full grasp what it would be to be, say, asexual but does that mean that I’ll cast judgement on them and say they don’t exist? No. Not at all.
In the end I’ve never understood the superiority complex because we’re all fighting for rights, we’re fighting to be known and understood, we’re all part of the same issue in the end.
