Asked by shanikins
Cool! Thanks for sharing. :)
Reference post: http://pansexualpride.tumblr.com/post/3167008239
I WANT TO BE THE POLE!
(Source: hulu.com)
OH PLEASE LET’S DO THIS ERRBODY.
We don’t have to all come out at take over the movement, but can we please please please team up to kick his ass out?
(via sexartandpolitics)
YES. I SECOND THIS.
(via jaded16india)
Dan Savage=Major Douche.
(via nimself)
You know who the real enemy is? Not the closeted bi/pansexual/queers. The real enemy is anyone who doesn’t support and even opposes people who can love or be attracted to more than one gender. The real enemy is someone who would try to get us to turn on ourselves instead of working to push back against the hate. Well you won’t see any of that here, because I support all my queer siblings, even the ones in the closet where nobody can see.
Is there any sexual orientation that is exclusively attracted to genderqueer people? I’m pansexual, so I don’t really split hairs on which genders I’m into. But sometimes I hear people say things like “I’m a lesbian who also dates trans men” or other such incongruities. And it makes me wonder: is there anyone out there who doesn’t like cis people whatsoever? Or are we genderqueer peeps the freaks who must always be covered by the person’s coincidental attraction to a “real” gender?
Is there any sexual orientation that is exclusively attracted to genderqueer people? I’m pansexual, so I don’t really split hairs on which genders I’m into. But sometimes I hear people say things like “I’m a lesbian who also dates trans men” or other such incongruities. And it makes me wonder: is there anyone out there who doesn’t like cis people whatsoever? Or are we genderqueer peeps the freaks who must always be covered by the person’s coincidental attraction to a “real” gender?
Seconding this question. Either exclusive attraction or no, it’s something I’ve found myself wondering about, both in terms of “is this a specific sexual orientation?” and “Fuck, how do I refer to someone being attracted to nonbinary people?”
Got the answer from delineatingkaj and nooffswitch and lissomedreams and mynameislyddy: skoliosexual!

tl;dr - The secret is that parents who choose to raise children are better equipped than those who became parents without planning. And I agree, and I support the rights of all parents.
But do we really need to erase bi/pansexual people like this? Do we need to ignore people who made the same healthy choices with a different gender partner (even straight ones)?
Besides, the research doesn’t even say that gay parents are better. They “found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.” And two men? The reserchers didn’t have data at all, only a suspicion. No, seriously.
You might be thinking “so what? People have been discriminating against same-sex parents for decades, isn’t this trivial when compared to our need to push for real rights?” Not if it leaves bi and pansexual parents behind. Not if it sets up a false struggle of “gays vs straights” as to who can most win at parenting.
If we want to take the science and the social issues seriously, we need to stand up and say “hey, gay parents are not better than straight ones. They’re equal. And that’s why we demand equality.”
P.S. - Also trans erasure, in that “only kids of straight couples are a surprise” way. Can’t believe I left that out at first, being genderqueer and all. *facepalm*
Anonymous asked you:I don’t understand what gender adds to anyone’s identities. It’s an arbitrary title. The only thing you have to do to be an X is to identify as X. So what’s the point? Every quality associated with every gender is arbitrary, so why label yourself? It doesn’t add anything to your identity? —-a confused human.This is the sort of ask that benefits from a multitude of comments, not just my own. So…responses please!
I label myself for the same reason that I organize my clothes in my dresser: it just makes things easier. I see labels as descriptive not prescriptive, so I don’t worry about “violating” my labels by trying something new, but I do use my labels to help people get a general idea of what I most probably will be like.
Text design on front:
Sex:
[_] Male
[_] Female
[X] Yes, please!
I bought myself one for Pride Fest. :)
Because I have a legitimate question for someone with a better grasp on how homosexuals classify or define homosexuality…and this is after I was (no kidding) in “the gay dorm” in college. It was in a themed college in Northern California - and the dorms were all themed too…and our dorm was the “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, Jewish” dorm.
So, how do homosexuals account for or classify people that have the urge to experiment and *like* it, but are “primarily straight”? There’s no great way to ask this question - and believe me, I’m one of the most LGBTQIA-friendly folk, but I still don’t know if all homosexuals are literally “born that way”, but I’m curious to know what someone of that orientation feels. Also, and slightly related, Is there any talk about (or truth to) the idea of a kid’s sexuality being “rewired” after some form of abuse? I don’t know if that’s still something people say, or if that was one of those things conservatives said to dismiss homosexuality as a “problem to be fixed.”
Anyway Andy, I appreciate you answering any of that - and if it didn’t make sense, I’m typing from my iPhone, so I literally don’t know how to scroll up and re-read what I wrote without losing it.
The classification of people into identity groups based on their sexual orientations is a recent development in human history as a necessary step toward political organization for rights. It isn’t, however, necessarily based on what’s most useful for people to relate to themselves. The “lifestyle choice vs born this way” debate, then, is also based from that perspective.
What we know about human behavior in all areas is that it’s far more complicated than that. It is useful in certain circumstances to help someone understand “I am not choosing to go to hell, I’m a normal healthy part of the human experience” as a way for them to come to terms with being themselves in a world that hates them. But I will point out that the problem is entirely external - if people would stop being haters, nobody would need to find a “justification” in genetic determinism.
But if someone were born one way, and then experienced a traumatic event (abuse or brain injury or whatever) and became a different way, how then would we come to the conclusion that there is even a problem to be fixed? Because its origins are something distasteful to us? That doesn’t lead us to want to cure Spiderman. Of course not, Spiderman is cool, and even a traumatic origin story doesn’t mean the end result isn’t amazing. That’s how it is with being queer. I’m baffled that people out there would suggest I waste countless hours trying to undo a part of myself that to me is a good thing.
Then we come to the heart of your question: what if we could chose? Granted, that’s still looking at it too simply. There are no such things as “free choices”, because every choice comes with a baggage of all sorts of good or bad consequences. We tend to focus on physical responses in our society: the physical response of being sexually attracted, sexually indifferent, or sexually repulsed by a particular body. But that’s not the only aspect of human sexuality that is significant in defining our choices and experiences. Personality is another: you know those people you just love being around, who make any activity more fun than if you had done it alone. Why not sex? Why not experimentation?
Well, it could be awkward. And there lies the heart of the matter. Awkward because society has wired us to feel that way. And sometimes people hear social training as something that you can just “choose” to undo. And maybe you can, and maybe you can’t. Again, that depends on the baggage of that choice’s consequences. (Go ahead, try to “choose” to walk down the street stark naked in front of an elementary school building, see what sorts of psychological and social trauma you might manage to escape.) It’s what is known philosophically as “compulsory heterosexuality” (this is where you have fun Googling, hint hint).
I’m pansexual. That means I don’t experience attraction along the linear scale ranging from homosexual-bisexual-heterosexual. It’s more like wibbly wobbly sexy wexy feelings all around. That means, I absolutely can have a choice in who I am attracted to and who I am not. Granted, my choice isn’t always the final say in the matter, there are some things I’m genuinely repulsed by (independent of gender or genitalia). I might have difficulty getting it on with someone who is a real jerk, or who thinks they’re a psychic vampire, or who is covered in weird pimples, for example. I am definitely into people who are smart and funny in a pleasant disarming way, and who care about me as a person. But damn, 7 billion people on the planet? Of course I’m making some choices.
tl;dr - You might be labeled “bicurious” or “heteroflexible”. If that sort of thing even matters.
(Source: facebook.com)
The Special Snowflake Club: “Ruining Everything Ever” - Now accepting applications!
I decided it was time to recruit members for the club.
We’re really selective.
And horrible.
God.
I love us.
Too funny!


must. reblog. infinitely.
I’m sure that will wash off eventually.
I masturbate however I like....
They know. Oh God, they know…
Is he now a Science Bros...
You don’t understand how bad I crave for this ship to be...
Joss Whedon totally just made science bros canon!