talk about unnecessary

*cough*

You do realize that avoiding the use of gender words and instead framing who you are/are not attracted to in terms of “people with penises” and “people with vaginas” makes you more of a bigot, right?

Advertisements

10 responses to “talk about unnecessary

  • Calum P Cameron

    …I presume this is in response to some particular incident and not just a blanket condemnation of people who happen to be, like, pan but attracted solely to individuals with particular anatomy for whatever reason?

    • Coyote

      It’s a criticism of an anonymous ask message, yes. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the second part of that question.

      • Calum P Cameron

        Well, I don’t know whether it’s a thing that actually exists, but I can imagine someone being, say, sexually attracted exclusively to people with penises (as in, cis men and “anatomically male” trans people). I mean, I get the impression that people having a “type” in terms of the physical features of those they are attracted to is a thing. And I’d have guessed that such a person describing themselves as such (“sexually attracted to people with penises”) wouldn’t necessarily be them being bigoted. I mean, it seems like it’s just more efficient than saying “I’m pansexual, but in an unusual way where even though gender doesn’t matter, I only seem to ever be attracted to people with traditionally male anatomy”).

        Please, forgive me if I’m just missing something. It certainly would not be the first time.

        • Coyote

          Nope, nope, nope. Doesn’t make sense. You can’t tell what someone’s genitals are unless you investigate that directly, remember? That isn’t and shouldn’t be public information. And you can’t tell just by looking whether someone is trans, either. So unless someone has a mentality of “I’m not attracted to anyone until I see them naked” …

          Also, ditch the phrases “traditionally male anatomy” and “anatomically male.” Biology isn’t that tidy, and all that serves to do is misgender people.

          • Calum P Cameron

            Fair enough.

            If I’m honest, I didn’t (and don’t) know nearly enough about the topic to say whether “I’m not attracted to anyone until I see them naked [possibly and/or have been told what they look like naked by someone else or whatever]” is a thing that can happen or not. I mean, is that really any crazier than any of the other things I’m apparently just supposed to understand to be true about human sexuality?

            I’ve reached the point where I tend to just assume all attraction-based quirks are valid and possible.

            My apologies. Didn’t mean to offend anyone with my incompetence.

          • Calum P Cameron

            I… hesitate to ask this, because I’m aware that at this point I really am at least pushing some kind of ‘Acceptable Number of Faux-pas’ Boundary. I’m also aware that this may not be the best time or place. So feel free to simply tell me to stop talking before I dig myself too deep, but…

            I have encountered people who describe themselves as only being attracted to people once they have been established to meet certain criteria – sometimes criteria that sounded like it would require a lot of time and cooperation to establish. I’ve known people who self-identified as not attracted to anyone until said anyone met their definition of intelligent. I’ve had one individual tell me they only found me attractive as a result of seeing me debate philosophy. I’ve even known someone to only find a man attractive after they witnessed him singing.

            So… am I to assume that “I’m not attracted to anyone until I see them X” is a real phenomenon, but only up to a point? Where X being “debate philosophy” is plausible but X being “naked” is patently ridiculous and can be discarded automatically?

            Or was I just foolishly misinterpreting those people’s claims all this time? In which case this whole thing becomes even more embarrassing, but I do seem to have made something of a habit of embarrassing myself of late, so I’m sure I’ll cope.

          • Coyote

            Yeah, and I’ve seen people say they’re attracted to some races and not others.

            I think it’s fair to say there are limits to what kinds of descriptions of attraction patterns are acceptable.

          • Calum P Cameron

            Oh I see.
            I think.
            Thankyou.

  • Klaraa

    I don’t know about involuntary attraction to genitals/attraction patterns that somehow involve genitals, but it is entirely possible and valid to have sexual preferences or relationship preferences based on genitals.

    Some people are afraid of / triggered by a particular kind of genitals, and feel neutral or positive toward the other kind.

    Some people desire for their [somewhat sexual] relationship to involve reproduction, the traditional kind where both partners are equally closely related to the offspring and conception comes about without any artificial means. For that to work, the partner having the opposite kind of genitals from one’s own is necessary, though not sufficient.

    Both are actual experiences, and I do think it would be beneficial to have words for them, just like it is helpful to have words for relationship types, and genders, and attraction types, though possibly less urgently necessary.

    Though that offending asker was probably talking about attraction patterns, and that IS messed up because of how genitals are usually not seen by the public, so attraction could only happen when they saw someone naked?. Just like I have long wondered how one can have romantic or sexual attraction based on genders, because one can not see gender, either. Only gender expression/presentation, and secondary sex characteristics.

    One other possibility is a person who is unaware that preferences and involuntary attraction patterns are separate things (and prefers one kind of partner genitals over the other because of reasons)…

    • Coyote

      I both personally empathize with repulsion toward genitals and regard that matter to be completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

      I’m quite a bit less sympathetic to people who want to raise children and have that specific requirements for how they’re born.

      “Though that offending asker was probably talking about attraction patterns, and that IS messed up”

      This is the part that matters.

WP account not required to comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: