login
Pansexual
-
No new posts
|
 2015-11-09 7:51 PM |
Pro  6838      Tejas |  Subject: Pansexualhttp://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/living/pansexual-feat/index.html Miley Cyrus speaks, "I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn't involve an animal and everyone is of age." I've never heard of such a thing. Well, maybe Freddie Mercury fits the bill. But still an obscure sexual identity, I think? Surely PCOJ could hold a civil and constructive discussion on the topic. |
| 2015-11-09 9:12 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Pansexual why is everyone so concerned what happens in other people's pants and bedrooms. You don't have to participate.....its like the gay marriage thing. Why in the world does it matter to anyone not in the relationship |
| 2015-11-09 10:16 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Pansexual Not worried about it. Just had not heard of it and was curious of others take on the. subject. But yeah, it will worry some people. |
| 2015-11-09 10:22 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Pansexual I have 2 kids in college and a wife who works for one - I am all over this topic for the last 2+ years. |
| 2015-11-10 6:35 AM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Pansexual I had a friend back in Houston that went for gender reassignment because he wanted to lesbian. Initial thought is that she would be considered pansexual, but that isn't correct. It makes her a lesbian. Doesn't the whole concept of pansexuality go against the LGBT fight to not be labeled or seen as different? Aren't young Miley and others being somewhat bigoted or insensitive by publicly defining themselves as pansexual? By definition they will have sex with a man or a woman. Which is Ok by LGBT standards because this identifies them as bisexual, But they go one step further and say they also have sex with transgendered people. Why? If someone who identifies as being transgender, they are then the opposite sex of which they were born. Saying you have sex with a transgerdered person and identifying them as a distinction should be offensive the the transgender community. Isn't the ultimate of the LGBT movement to be recognized as equals founded on being gay, lesbian or bisexual? Meaning that the goal is to say people are only straight, lesbian, gay or bisexual; the T label should be dropped and everyone should ultimately drop into one of these four categories? |
| 2015-11-10 7:10 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Pansexual You're thinking in black and white, they are thinking in 50 shades of grey |
| 2015-11-10 8:22 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Veteran 869 Stevens Point, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by mdg2003 I had a friend back in Houston that went for gender reassignment because he wanted to lesbian. Initial thought is that she would be considered pansexual, but that isn't correct. It makes her a lesbian. Doesn't the whole concept of pansexuality go against the LGBT fight to not be labeled or seen as different? Aren't young Miley and others being somewhat bigoted or insensitive by publicly defining themselves as pansexual? By definition they will have sex with a man or a woman. Which is Ok by LGBT standards because this identifies them as bisexual, But they go one step further and say they also have sex with transgendered people. Why? If someone who identifies as being transgender, they are then the opposite sex of which they were born. Saying you have sex with a transgerdered person and identifying them as a distinction should be offensive the the transgender community. Isn't the ultimate of the LGBT movement to be recognized as equals founded on being gay, lesbian or bisexual? Meaning that the goal is to say people are only straight, lesbian, gay or bisexual; the T label should be dropped and everyone should ultimately drop into one of these four categories? I see where your coming from and you bring up some good points. But here is a prespective from someone involved in the LGBT community. Sexuality isn't as simple as hetero, homo, or bi. Some people could confuse bisexuality (attracted to both sexes) and pansexuality. Consider pansexuality to be more gender blind, it's not as much about the gender of the person as it is the actual person. pan means all, thus they can be attracted to anyone. I think its a complication notion from someone who is only attracted to one sex (including myself). Even more so to distinguish the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. For me I would have a hard time having a relationship with a FtM (female to male). I would try, and give it my best effort but I don't know if I could do it. While I would consider them male, and treat them as such I just don't know if I could do it. I can see where you are coming from with saying that it is offensive to the transgender community and you may be correct. It is an interesting discussion about dropping the T from LGBT, there are some good arguments for both sides.
|
| 2015-11-10 8:28 AM in reply to: 0 |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Pansexual I love the CNN slide show - so many more categories than I thought. They forgot "lackosexual" which is for those in long-term, monogamous relationships (NTTAWWT) who don't have sex near as much as they would like. Edited by Hook'em 2015-11-10 8:28 AM |
| 2015-11-10 8:38 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by dmiller5 You're thinking in black and white, they are thinking in 50 shades of grey I see that, but isn't the goal to become black and white. No distinctions? |
| 2015-11-10 8:50 AM in reply to: Justin86 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by mdg2003 I had a friend back in Houston that went for gender reassignment because he wanted to lesbian. Initial thought is that she would be considered pansexual, but that isn't correct. It makes her a lesbian. Doesn't the whole concept of pansexuality go against the LGBT fight to not be labeled or seen as different? Aren't young Miley and others being somewhat bigoted or insensitive by publicly defining themselves as pansexual? By definition they will have sex with a man or a woman. Which is Ok by LGBT standards because this identifies them as bisexual, But they go one step further and say they also have sex with transgendered people. Why? If someone who identifies as being transgender, they are then the opposite sex of which they were born. Saying you have sex with a transgerdered person and identifying them as a distinction should be offensive the the transgender community. Isn't the ultimate of the LGBT movement to be recognized as equals founded on being gay, lesbian or bisexual? Meaning that the goal is to say people are only straight, lesbian, gay or bisexual; the T label should be dropped and everyone should ultimately drop into one of these four categories? I see where your coming from and you bring up some good points. But here is a prespective from someone involved in the LGBT community. Sexuality isn't as simple as hetero, homo, or bi. Some people could confuse bisexuality (attracted to both sexes) and pansexuality. Consider pansexuality to be more gender blind, it's not as much about the gender of the person as it is the actual person. pan means all, thus they can be attracted to anyone. I think its a complication notion from someone who is only attracted to one sex (including myself). Even more so to distinguish the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. For me I would have a hard time having a relationship with a FtM (female to male). I would try, and give it my best effort but I don't know if I could do it. While I would consider them male, and treat them as such I just don't know if I could do it. I can see where you are coming from with saying that it is offensive to the transgender community and you may be correct. It is an interesting discussion about dropping the T from LGBT, there are some good arguments for both sides.
Right. That's my understanding. A transgendered person defines themselves as 'X' and wishes to be treated as such. Thus, I think theT would be something they would wish to see dropped. We all want to be defined as either male or female. Choosing to sleep with females, males or both are then the only options. Declaring yourself as pansexual would indicate that you recognize a transgendered person as being the opposite of what sex that person has identified themselves as being. Making that distinction indicates to me that a pansexual doesn't recognize the gender choice a transgendered person has made and identified with. While a pansexual can accept and love a transgendered person for who they are, I think it a bit hypocritical that they would make the distinction. |
| 2015-11-10 9:03 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 I see that, but isn't the goal to become black and white. No distinctions? You're thinking in black and white, they are thinking in 50 shades of grey I think a lot of people are happy living with more nebulous definitions and lines between things, because putting everything into categories doesn't matter to them. |
| 2015-11-10 9:12 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 I see that, but isn't the goal to become black and white. No distinctions? You're thinking in black and white, they are thinking in 50 shades of grey I think a lot of people are happy living with more nebulous definitions and lines between things, because putting everything into categories doesn't matter to them. So the goal of the LGBT movement is to recognize all sexual orientations and define them as being different? My understanding is the aim is to erase the lines; to accept and recognize someone as being a woman or a man. And to make sexual partner preferences a moot point. Am I off base? Edited by mdg2003 2015-11-10 9:13 AM |
| 2015-11-10 9:27 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 So the goal of the LGBT movement is to recognize all sexual orientations and define them as being different? My understanding is the aim is to erase the lines; to accept and recognize someone as being a woman or a man. And to make sexual partner preferences a moot point. Am I off base? Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 I see that, but isn't the goal to become black and white. No distinctions? You're thinking in black and white, they are thinking in 50 shades of grey I think a lot of people are happy living with more nebulous definitions and lines between things, because putting everything into categories doesn't matter to them. I think the point is more acceptance of whatever people want to be, no matter what they call themselves |
| 2015-11-10 9:44 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by mdg2003 I had a friend back in Houston that went for gender reassignment because he wanted to lesbian. Initial thought is that she would be considered pansexual, but that isn't correct. It makes her a lesbian. Doesn't the whole concept of pansexuality go against the LGBT fight to not be labeled or seen as different? Aren't young Miley and others being somewhat bigoted or insensitive by publicly defining themselves as pansexual? By definition they will have sex with a man or a woman. Which is Ok by LGBT standards because this identifies them as bisexual, But they go one step further and say they also have sex with transgendered people. Why? If someone who identifies as being transgender, they are then the opposite sex of which they were born. Saying you have sex with a transgerdered person and identifying them as a distinction should be offensive the the transgender community. Isn't the ultimate of the LGBT movement to be recognized as equals founded on being gay, lesbian or bisexual? Meaning that the goal is to say people are only straight, lesbian, gay or bisexual; the T label should be dropped and everyone should ultimately drop into one of these four categories? I see where your coming from and you bring up some good points. But here is a prespective from someone involved in the LGBT community. Sexuality isn't as simple as hetero, homo, or bi. Some people could confuse bisexuality (attracted to both sexes) and pansexuality. Consider pansexuality to be more gender blind, it's not as much about the gender of the person as it is the actual person. pan means all, thus they can be attracted to anyone. I think its a complication notion from someone who is only attracted to one sex (including myself). Even more so to distinguish the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. For me I would have a hard time having a relationship with a FtM (female to male). I would try, and give it my best effort but I don't know if I could do it. While I would consider them male, and treat them as such I just don't know if I could do it. I can see where you are coming from with saying that it is offensive to the transgender community and you may be correct. It is an interesting discussion about dropping the T from LGBT, there are some good arguments for both sides.
Declaring yourself as pansexual would indicate that you recognize a transgendered person as being the opposite of what sex that person has identified themselves as being. Making that distinction indicates to me that a pansexual doesn't recognize the gender choice a transgendered person has made and identified with. While a pansexual can accept and love a transgendered person for who they are, I think it a bit hypocritical that they would make the distinction. I think you're kind of missing the point. A person who is pansexual is saying that the person, not the gender, is what matters. They aren't focusing on the gender of the person to whom they are attracted at all. Realistically, I suppose at some point they'll have to consider how the other person's hardware works with their own, but other than for purely practical purposes, the pansexual person isn't "recognizing" a transgendered person as male or female-- simply as a person with whom they want to get down. |
| 2015-11-10 10:15 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Pansexual I have a headache. |
| 2015-11-10 10:20 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by mdg2003 I had a friend back in Houston that went for gender reassignment because he wanted to lesbian. Initial thought is that she would be considered pansexual, but that isn't correct. It makes her a lesbian. Doesn't the whole concept of pansexuality go against the LGBT fight to not be labeled or seen as different? Aren't young Miley and others being somewhat bigoted or insensitive by publicly defining themselves as pansexual? By definition they will have sex with a man or a woman. Which is Ok by LGBT standards because this identifies them as bisexual, But they go one step further and say they also have sex with transgendered people. Why? If someone who identifies as being transgender, they are then the opposite sex of which they were born. Saying you have sex with a transgerdered person and identifying them as a distinction should be offensive the the transgender community. Isn't the ultimate of the LGBT movement to be recognized as equals founded on being gay, lesbian or bisexual? Meaning that the goal is to say people are only straight, lesbian, gay or bisexual; the T label should be dropped and everyone should ultimately drop into one of these four categories? I see where your coming from and you bring up some good points. But here is a prespective from someone involved in the LGBT community. Sexuality isn't as simple as hetero, homo, or bi. Some people could confuse bisexuality (attracted to both sexes) and pansexuality. Consider pansexuality to be more gender blind, it's not as much about the gender of the person as it is the actual person. pan means all, thus they can be attracted to anyone. I think its a complication notion from someone who is only attracted to one sex (including myself). Even more so to distinguish the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. For me I would have a hard time having a relationship with a FtM (female to male). I would try, and give it my best effort but I don't know if I could do it. While I would consider them male, and treat them as such I just don't know if I could do it. I can see where you are coming from with saying that it is offensive to the transgender community and you may be correct. It is an interesting discussion about dropping the T from LGBT, there are some good arguments for both sides.
Declaring yourself as pansexual would indicate that you recognize a transgendered person as being the opposite of what sex that person has identified themselves as being. Making that distinction indicates to me that a pansexual doesn't recognize the gender choice a transgendered person has made and identified with. While a pansexual can accept and love a transgendered person for who they are, I think it a bit hypocritical that they would make the distinction. I think you're kind of missing the point. A person who is pansexual is saying that the person, not the gender, is what matters. They aren't focusing on the gender of the person to whom they are attracted at all. Realistically, I suppose at some point they'll have to consider how the other person's hardware works with their own, but other than for purely practical purposes, the pansexual person isn't "recognizing" a transgendered person as male or female-- simply as a person with whom they want to get down. Ahh, I got it now. Still, why make the distinction? I think everyone is trying to be categorized as one thing or the other, all the while wanting to be accepted as mainstream. Does drawing attention like this help with mainstream acceptance or is it a distraction that hinders such? |
| 2015-11-10 10:21 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by Left Brain I have a headache. It's probably those pigtails. Rake that out and go with the fro. |
| 2015-11-10 10:22 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Ahh, I got it now. Still, why make the distinction? I think everyone is trying to be categorized as one thing or the other, all the while wanting to be accepted as mainstream. Does drawing attention like this help with mainstream acceptance or is it a distraction that hinders such? Originally posted by mdg2003 I think you're kind of missing the point. A person who is pansexual is saying that the person, not the gender, is what matters. They aren't focusing on the gender of the person to whom they are attracted at all. Realistically, I suppose at some point they'll have to consider how the other person's hardware works with their own, but other than for purely practical purposes, the pansexual person isn't "recognizing" a transgendered person as male or female-- simply as a person with whom they want to get down. Originally posted by Justin86 Declaring yourself as pansexual would indicate that you recognize a transgendered person as being the opposite of what sex that person has identified themselves as being. Making that distinction indicates to me that a pansexual doesn't recognize the gender choice a transgendered person has made and identified with. While a pansexual can accept and love a transgendered person for who they are, I think it a bit hypocritical that they would make the distinction. Originally posted by mdg2003 I had a friend back in Houston that went for gender reassignment because he wanted to lesbian. Initial thought is that she would be considered pansexual, but that isn't correct. It makes her a lesbian. Doesn't the whole concept of pansexuality go against the LGBT fight to not be labeled or seen as different? Aren't young Miley and others being somewhat bigoted or insensitive by publicly defining themselves as pansexual? By definition they will have sex with a man or a woman. Which is Ok by LGBT standards because this identifies them as bisexual, But they go one step further and say they also have sex with transgendered people. Why? If someone who identifies as being transgender, they are then the opposite sex of which they were born. Saying you have sex with a transgerdered person and identifying them as a distinction should be offensive the the transgender community. Isn't the ultimate of the LGBT movement to be recognized as equals founded on being gay, lesbian or bisexual? Meaning that the goal is to say people are only straight, lesbian, gay or bisexual; the T label should be dropped and everyone should ultimately drop into one of these four categories? I see where your coming from and you bring up some good points. But here is a prespective from someone involved in the LGBT community. Sexuality isn't as simple as hetero, homo, or bi. Some people could confuse bisexuality (attracted to both sexes) and pansexuality. Consider pansexuality to be more gender blind, it's not as much about the gender of the person as it is the actual person. pan means all, thus they can be attracted to anyone. I think its a complication notion from someone who is only attracted to one sex (including myself). Even more so to distinguish the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. For me I would have a hard time having a relationship with a FtM (female to male). I would try, and give it my best effort but I don't know if I could do it. While I would consider them male, and treat them as such I just don't know if I could do it. I can see where you are coming from with saying that it is offensive to the transgender community and you may be correct. It is an interesting discussion about dropping the T from LGBT, there are some good arguments for both sides.
see here's the rub, they don't want to be "accepted as mainstream" they just want people to leave them the eff alone and let them have the same rights and privileges as those who are considered mainstream |
| 2015-11-10 10:55 AM in reply to: Hook'em |
| 538 Brooklyn, New York | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by Hook'em I love the CNN slide show - so many more categories than I thought. They forgot "lackosexual" which is for those in long-term, monogamous relationships (NTTAWWT) who don't have sex near as much as they would like. Enjoyed this one. And think I'll be using it |
| 2015-11-10 11:43 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Ahh, I got it now. Still, why make the distinction? I think everyone is trying to be categorized as one thing or the other, all the while wanting to be accepted as mainstream. Does drawing attention like this help with mainstream acceptance or is it a distraction that hinders such? Originally posted by mdg2003 I think you're kind of missing the point. A person who is pansexual is saying that the person, not the gender, is what matters. They aren't focusing on the gender of the person to whom they are attracted at all. Realistically, I suppose at some point they'll have to consider how the other person's hardware works with their own, but other than for purely practical purposes, the pansexual person isn't "recognizing" a transgendered person as male or female-- simply as a person with whom they want to get down. Originally posted by Justin86 Declaring yourself as pansexual would indicate that you recognize a transgendered person as being the opposite of what sex that person has identified themselves as being. Making that distinction indicates to me that a pansexual doesn't recognize the gender choice a transgendered person has made and identified with. While a pansexual can accept and love a transgendered person for who they are, I think it a bit hypocritical that they would make the distinction. Originally posted by mdg2003 I had a friend back in Houston that went for gender reassignment because he wanted to lesbian. Initial thought is that she would be considered pansexual, but that isn't correct. It makes her a lesbian. Doesn't the whole concept of pansexuality go against the LGBT fight to not be labeled or seen as different? Aren't young Miley and others being somewhat bigoted or insensitive by publicly defining themselves as pansexual? By definition they will have sex with a man or a woman. Which is Ok by LGBT standards because this identifies them as bisexual, But they go one step further and say they also have sex with transgendered people. Why? If someone who identifies as being transgender, they are then the opposite sex of which they were born. Saying you have sex with a transgerdered person and identifying them as a distinction should be offensive the the transgender community. Isn't the ultimate of the LGBT movement to be recognized as equals founded on being gay, lesbian or bisexual? Meaning that the goal is to say people are only straight, lesbian, gay or bisexual; the T label should be dropped and everyone should ultimately drop into one of these four categories? I see where your coming from and you bring up some good points. But here is a prespective from someone involved in the LGBT community. Sexuality isn't as simple as hetero, homo, or bi. Some people could confuse bisexuality (attracted to both sexes) and pansexuality. Consider pansexuality to be more gender blind, it's not as much about the gender of the person as it is the actual person. pan means all, thus they can be attracted to anyone. I think its a complication notion from someone who is only attracted to one sex (including myself). Even more so to distinguish the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. For me I would have a hard time having a relationship with a FtM (female to male). I would try, and give it my best effort but I don't know if I could do it. While I would consider them male, and treat them as such I just don't know if I could do it. I can see where you are coming from with saying that it is offensive to the transgender community and you may be correct. It is an interesting discussion about dropping the T from LGBT, there are some good arguments for both sides.
see here's the rub, they don't want to be "accepted as mainstream" they just want people to leave them the eff alone and let them have the same rights and privileges as those who are considered mainstream Ding ding!!! "Equal" doesn't mean "the same". When a person wears a t-shirt that identifies them as being of, say, Irish or Italian descent, no one accuses them of wanting to be treated differently or expecting to have different rights than everyone else. It's accepted that this person is simply demonstrating their cultural pride. But when a black person or a gay person or a muslim openly asserts that which makes them "different" it's often viewed as their not wanting to be part of the "mainstream". It's a bit of a double standard. Why can a person who identifies themself as being of Irish descent be automatically assumed to be part of the mainstream, but a person of color who similarly declares their ethnicity or race is considered to be placing themselves outside of it? (edited to remove hijack. I like where this discussion is going and don't want to derail it.) Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2015-11-10 11:44 AM |
| 2015-11-10 12:52 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Pansexual Responding to Jonah here and I dropped the quotes to tidy up the post a bit. I've never considered 'equal' to not mean 'the same'. I've never had someone even propose to me that there is a distinction between the two words. I'll need to get in some "bucket time" and consider the concept a bit. |
| 2015-11-10 1:06 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Pansexual "see here's the rub, they don't want to be "accepted as mainstream" they just want people to leave them the eff alone and let them have the same rights and privileges as those who are considered mainstream David, Wanting to be mainstream is the message that the community is projecting. Whether that is their intent, or not, that is what I hear. With the exception of gay marriage, they do have the same rights and privileges as you and I do. Gay marriage is slowly but surely making it's way across the country, state by state. So you're saying that once DOMA is recognized in all 50 states, the LGBT movement has completed their agenda and ceases to be a presence? |
| 2015-11-10 1:27 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by mdg2003 "see here's the rub, they don't want to be "accepted as mainstream" they just want people to leave them the eff alone and let them have the same rights and privileges as those who are considered mainstream David, Wanting to be mainstream is the message that the community is projecting. Whether that is their intent, or not, that is what I hear. With the exception of gay marriage, they do have the same rights and privileges as you and I do. Gay marriage is slowly but surely making it's way across the country, state by state. So you're saying that once DOMA is recognized in all 50 states, the LGBT movement has completed their agenda and ceases to be a presence? Well, I hear their message and understood something different...so maybe the issue isn't with the message. And I think being allowed to be married is a good step, but was the civil rights movement finished when they obtained the right to vote? or the women's movement? no, that's a bit silly and simplistic to say. Most of the time, people just want to have the same perceived opportunities, rights, and respect as those around them |
| 2015-11-10 2:48 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Pansexual Originally posted by mdg2003 Responding to Jonah here and I dropped the quotes to tidy up the post a bit. I've never considered 'equal' to not mean 'the same'. I've never had someone even propose to me that there is a distinction between the two words. I'll need to get in some "bucket time" and consider the concept a bit. It's funny, when I went back and read that statement, which made perfect sense to me when I typed it, I realized that it could be confusing or counterintuitive. The analogy I came up with was that four quarters and a dollar bill are equal, but they're not the same. It's our differences that make us great. I don't think you have to homogenize our culture to have equality. If you're suggesting that people assimmilate into the "mainstream", what comprises this "mainstream" you're referring to? If "mainstream" means "typical American", does that mean "white, straight Christian"? I'm not trying to be provocative-- I'm trying to explain that as someone who comes from a minority group, I can assert and celebrate my minority-ness without saying that I don't want to be considered part of American culture as a whole. It's not having it both ways-- it's a quintessential part of what being an American is. A person is Jewish and American, gay and American, black and American. They aren't mutually exclusive and they're all "mainstream". |
| 2015-11-10 5:54 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Pansexual I think this clip from Portlandia sums this up completely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkRog16ODY4 |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK