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

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

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 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 -  (2 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.