He calls this a lesbian relationship
Ah what a nice way to observe Lesbian Visibility Day. Via Queensland Council for LGBTI Health – QC:
I’m Evie, and I feel I am pansexual, and attracted to people not so much the gender. I also Identity as female and happily in love with my female partner for 10 years, and I call this a lesbian relationship. I work for Open Doors as an alcohol and other drugs worker, I’m a keen skate boarder, make short queer films, and plug into virtual reality a lot, and I’m part of a group that’s called We Skate Brisbane.
I spent most of my life searching for lesbian and queer visibility, it’s like oxygen for my soul to meet others, and learning about the community and various identities helps to build a world of hope for me.
I don’t know if I would call myself a champion (note from the Editor: QC does!), as I just see myself as driven. I just can’t rest as there is so much to do in and with the community, and I just know I have to keep trying. #LesbianVisibilityDay
I’m reminded of common meme photoshops of Republican congressmen onto women from movies…
How does “pansexual” differ from “bisexual?” “Pan” doesn’t give you more options than “bi” if there are only two to start with. Unless he’s talking about cookware.
What does this even mean? Are the films about queer people of less than average height? Films of short duration about queer people? Or are they films of reduced running time that are themselves actually queer, perhaps shot with the camera held upside down, emersed in Jello, or covered in peanut butter? Or perhaps the films are queer as in convention-defyingly incomprehensible?
I wonder if the female partner is female, or merely “identifies as” female. These female-as-identity types are often a bit more particular when it comes to who they want to fuck.
Well not all (perhaps most) straight/gay people have any interest in fucking someone who’s juiced their body with opposite sex hormones so I guess that’s it? Does imply the existence of more than two sexes though which ain’t the case.
YnnB:
Good start, but I feel that you’re only just scratching the surface. For instance:
Why would souls need oxygen?
Is this 1992 all of a sudden? You plug into virtual reality do you? Christ, who talks like that?
Oh, wait, it’s porn, isn’t it? I’ve never thought before about whether VR porn exists but of course it does and that’s what you’re ‘plugging into’ (wink) a lot, isn’t it?
Isn’t it ‘skateboarder’? I’m pretty sure it’s ‘skateboarder’. Who says ‘skate boarder’? Not skateboarders, I’m sure of that.
I think we all know you would. I think we all know you wear a badge with “champion” written on it. You even wear it in the bath.
I love how he brought into the conversation that he might be a ‘champion’, but did so bashfully as if too modest to suggest it. I know from experience that if I was not certain whether I was deserving of some compliment or accolade, I wouldn’t bring it up at all.
See also
Well at least he’s excellent comic material.
I’m concerned primarily with what QC did here. This person is male, does not identify as lesbian, does not necessarily call himself a “champion”, but QC decided to highlight this person, in a tenuously labeled “lesbian” relationship, on Lesbian Visibility Day, calling him a “champion” in the process. For shame, QC.
“attracted to people not so much the gender”
Ugh, this pompous pretentious bullshit. Yeah, because us heterosexuals are just attracted to gender. That’s all we care about. You sure got us figured out. We’re not deep like you pansexuals, or bisexuals, and certainly not the “sapiosexuals” (ugh!).
This is a small thing but having that image jump out at me every time I load the page… The uncanny valley effect is just too much.
What are ‘sapiosexuals’? People who spend their spare time in bed with philosophers, or indulging in self-abuse with the assistance of ‘Leviathan’, ‘Being and Time’, ‘The Phenomenology of Spirit’ or ‘Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus’?
Ah, I have looked it up, and it seems I got it right, more or less. What a proliferation of useless terms is inflicted on us these days! It seems that if some invented term gives the appearance of referring to some supposed phenomenon, that phenomenon must actually exist. Though I do recall the historian Tony Judt in one of his late essays describing, rather wistfully, I thought, the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski being surrounded by young women at some academic conference, and remarking on the glamour of Kolakowski’s intelligence.
I was discussing the concept of “dating” with a friend recently. I am not among the people who ever socialized with events that were officially “dates” or “double dates” or any of that, but lots of people do, and they have all sorts of criteria about what should or should not be done before Date Number N. Similarly, people seem to have highly-developed lists of characteristics they seek in potential partners for romance or “dates”, whatever those might be for them. These picky categories of “sapiosexual” and the like seem a lot like these lists of the characteristics of an imagined partner, given the cachet of presumed semi-permanence and a “science-y” name.