"Pansexuality will replace bisexuality eventually".
How can people not see the problem with that statement. Are you really so blind and brainwashed by the social justice brigade that you don’t see a problem?
I’m not even going to reply to that post. Like holy shit, if you’re that off the deep end? Nope.
Come on now, if you’re going to call me out then at least quote me correctly. I wrote, ‘In my opinion that “pansexual” is a better term and will eventually supplant “bisexual”.’ It’s important to be clear I’m talking about word usage where one word encroaches on another, not about one behavior replacing another behavior.
No, I don’t see a problem with that. It was your rants on the topic a while back here that really got me thinking about it. I agree that it is nuts to construe “bisexual” to imply trans-phobic etc. I am sympathetic to how you want to define “bisexual”, and it is somewhat I shame to see the word get redefined just by the presence of a new term, but that’s how language evolves I suppose.
I don’t have an emotional attachment to these words, I just think “pansexual” is a bit better. It also appears to me that people younger then me searching for a label for themselves are finding and preferring “pansexual”. I don’t have statistics or anything, but I’d put a small wager on that word continuing to gain steam and continuing to displace the term “bisexual”.
Why does preferring one term over another mean I’m off the deep end? You seem very emotionally invested in this… I can only suppose that other promoters of the term “pansexual” have been off the deep end and slandering those that identify as bisexual?
It seems to me that “bisexual” and “pansexual” differ in that “bisexual” is often used to describe sexual attraction while “pansexual” is used to declare a lack of sexual aversion. Now, semantics being what they are, I don’t imagine there will be any solid consensus on this usage… but it certainty seems to me that we pansexuals are not generally announcing to what we are sexually attracted. It isn’t that we are sexually attracted to humans generally… it may be what attracts us isn’t specific to gender. Or maybe we can’t name it. Maybe there isn’t a word. So we instead define it in the negative.
When I say I am pansexual I declare only that I have no gender based limits and I lack a better word.
What do you think?
You are wrong because bisexual also has no gender limits. People ASSUME INCORRECTLY bisexual means “attracted to both genders”, but sadly the English language doesn’t work that way. Not to mention that this logic implies all bisexuals are “cissexist” or “trans*phobic” as I regularly see declared on the more radical pansexual blogs or commentators in the community.
Heterosexual = attracted to that which is different from one’s self
Homosexual = attracted to that which is the same as one’s self
Thus bisexual would mean “sexually attracted to that which is the same or different from one’s self”. So thus Pansexual by default becomes absolutely superfluous, and oppressive/douchey/insulting to the bisexual label.
I hear you, but I think in usage, and after having discussed this a bit with people that are more expert than I am myself, I do believe that the gender binary is embedded in the word bisexual and though it can easily embrace trans folk, it doesn’t do so well with the growing consciousness of gender queer or gender fluid folk.
I like the spin you put on it with same/different, but that does not appear to be consistent with the historical usage of the word as originally applied to sexuality by Richard von Krafft-Ebing. Further, it is problematic to apply your definition for someone that is gender-queer. It seems your definition is a reaction to the original defects in the thinking behind the word “bisexual”, a meaning now better served by the word “pansexual”. In my opinion that “pansexual” is a better term and will eventually supplant “bisexual”. Unless there can be some clear distinction made between these two terms, I expect the word “bisexual” to eventually fall out of common usage. Just my opinion, mind you.
We’re discussing about the usage of words, and I think that is all. Even if bisexual were taken to mean attraction to only cis or trans males and females, it doesn’t strike me as cissexist or trans*phobic. Rather it is simply the declaration of a preference.
Anyway, the word “pansexual” is clearly encroaching on the turf marked by the “bisexual” label. And maybe it is oppressive/douchey/insulting to the label, but a semantic argument should not have to be insulting to the people using the alternate label I would hope.
well , first of all , let us define what regular geometry is , the word itself comes from ancient greek from the terms geo “earth”, and metron “measurement”. and it is the branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape, size, relative position of figures, proportions and the properties of space.
the diference between regular geometry and sacred geometry is simply the way or function in wich they are used. sacred geometry is employed for magical, symbolical, spiritual or religious purposes. if geometry is concerned with the questions of spaces, shapes and sizes, sacred geometry deals with spiritual spaces, sacred proportions and magical shapes, just to name a few things.
as you may imagine sacred geometry is deeply connected to numerology, wich is the ancient belief certain numbers have symbolic meaning, aside from their ordinary use for counting or calculating. figures and planes were thought of in a similar way, and in fact, carried even more emotional value than the numbers themselves, because they were visual.
I have found that it can be used to improve any magickal working in general. from;
the arrangement of objects in the altar.
improving sigil work.
building stronger wards.
making religious art.
and the creation of rituals.
I have even found ways to use it for divination and a simple way to make a [completely] concealed and portable altar in plain sight.
I plan on making further posts explaining all of the above.
I see this C.S. Lewis quote trotted out fairly often:
You don’t have a soul.
You are a soul.
You have a body.
… and as much as I try to respect other peoples’ definitions, I can’t help but think this is just completely wrong because it seems to me the body and soul are too interdependent to say one has the other.
Consider cerebral achromatopsia. This form of color blindness can occur after cortical injury and what is most marked is that often it includes not just the loss of the experience of color, it also includes the loss of the concept of color. That is, it is impossible to imagine the experience of color. There are a number of syndromes like this such as hemispatial neglect, where an individual loses the concept of one half of space.
These syndromes and many others show that loss of function of brain tissue results in loss of ability to experience, imagine, conceptualize, and think. That is, functions normally attributed to the mind and soul are dependent upon the body.
So here is my metaphor linking these together.
At the core of consciousness is primordial non-being, undifferentiated chaos, the source (Ain-soph-aur)
The body is the material world, manifest existence, that which behaves as if it is objective reality (Malkuth)
Linking being and non-being is the Soul. The soul is the string stretched taught between being and non-being like a string on a Lyre. In this state the soul is capable of resonating between being and non-being and this resonance is the mind, like music is to an instrument.
This working requires at least five participants, preferably six or seven. This is a BDSM sex magick ritual. You’ve been warned.
Inanna - Sumerian goddess of sexual love and fertility
Ereshkigal - Sister of Inanna, goddess of the underworld
Dumuzi - Bridegroom to Inanna, the shepherd,…