Meanwhile, Genre has been sending me one issue a month for almost two years now with the message, "we are ending your subscription!", and I never subscribed!
Genre will continue being irrelevant but with a new, equally nauseating editor.
Unfortunately I receive Genre magazine-one of those "perks" that one gets for renewing one's gay.com premium membership. Gee--thanks, PlanetOut, Inc. I'll have you know that when I get those "discretely" packaged, shrink-wrapped magazines in the mail, they go directly in to the trash.
Meh -- if there weren't actual bi men, I wouldn't be able to trick straight men that everybody is bisexual. So I applaud this hot jowly mess.
Also, if you're unfamiliar with the term pansexual, maybe you shouldn't be covering the queer beat? It's not like it's some wacky, make-believe term that he came up with all on his own.
@Solomon Grundy: No, it's just an absurd and recent term made up by jackasses. It's also proof of the stupidity of any person using the term. Because if I have to explain what "pan" means you should probably just go fuck a nurse shark and quit wasting my time.
@saythatscool: As a prefix, 'pan' means 'all'. If you don't see why that's preferable to 'bi' for some people when describing their sexual practices, girl you need to read some Judy Butler, stat!
More to the point, it's a term that has been meaningfully used by multiple communities over a long period of time.
By the way, I would never use it to describe myself. I'm clearly a butt-pirate.
@Solomon Grundy: There are two sexes - male and female. If you enjoy having sex with both, then you are a "bisexual." A transsexual is still a male or female, not a mystery third sex recently discovered by the LBGT community. Accordingly, if you enjoy fucking males, females and transsexuals you remain a "bisexual." You don't get a new term like "pansexual" because the word derivation makes no sense and it is unnecessary.
When we discover a person who like to fuck flowers, owls and the law of thermodynamics that person will be deemed a "pansexual." See, there is a system to language and no matter how much any idiot would like to lower the bar for their particular purpose, we are not going to do that around here.
It's the same reason that I continue to use the word niggardly in public. The LCD can kiss my fucking posterior if they don't understand root words and the way they work.
@saythatscool: Blech, you're ignorant, bigoted, and talk condescendingly about shit you don't know shit about. Funny how often those go together. Goodbye.
@Solomon Grundy: I'm confused. Are you gay, straight, bi, or pan? Do you have a penis? Just trying to grasp your frame of \ reference to understand your indignation. BTW, saythatscool is hot and has a tight ass -- you may want to reconsider.
@Solomon Grundy: I think it's pretty clear from this thread that I'm a man too. How would we make babies? Are you keyed into some sort of pansexual activity that would let us procreate?
@saythatscool: The concept of gender is far more important in non-procreative sex than vaginas and penises are. Biological sex may be how the original terms (in English) were formed, but that isn't set in stone. Root words may "work" a certain way, but that also includes the addition of new meanings over time, i.e. the "1)" and "2)" and "3)" headings under words in the dictionary.
Don't use the term "pansexual" if you don't want to. Keep believing that people who use it should be fucking a flower if that makes you feel happy and settled. But you're not going to undo decades of academic queer theory with an adherence to the original Webster dictionary -- that's the same technique used by ultra-fundamentalist Christian home schoolers to preserve a sense of connection to the "real meanings of things, when we had values". The home schoolers, I guess, are raising the bar of language use.
@LetsHaveAKeithParty: Look, I may be coming off as unreasonable to you, but words have meaning and people who respect words use them correctly. For example, George Bush is someone who doesn't respect words in my opinion. So I will continue to call out all people for misusing words when they are using them improperly.
BTW, I think everyone should do whomever they want whenever they want and however they want.
"Pansexual" is a poor choice for the idea people are attempting to express here. Ryan was making fun of that word choice, not the idea, in the post. SG is wrong to tell Ryan he can't cover LBGT issues because he is making fun of the word. That's all.
@LetsHaveAKeithParty: Oh, for crying out loud. If you want to talk about the concept of gender, fine. This is a discussion about gender only insofar as it pertains to sex, and the way I see it, there are currently two legitimate options: doing it with men or doing it with women.
Transgendered people fit into one of those categories, unless we're going to treat them like they're alien beings and require a third category to include them. I think that's condescending beyond belief.
Saythatscool has time and again proven he's not only open-minded but intellectually independent, and I for one find that vastly preferable to the sheep in tranny's clothing who mandate we all adhere to some PC dictionary that needs updating every time the wind blows or someone gets bored of being part of a minority that, thankfully, grows more accepted by the day.
Comparing him -- and by extension, the rest of us -- to "ultra-fundamentalist Christian home schoolers" is not only outrageous but will also ultimately undermine your cause. We're not the enemies, no matter how much you seem to wish that were the case.
Ah think yer misundersexualizing this issue. Let's get this straight: there is 3 kinds of peeple 1) Heterosexuals 2) Homosexuals 3) Sexuals that will attack an open can of asparagus. Nuff said.
@LetsHaveAKeithParty: OK, we can definitely agree Neal is being a tool to use the term. I suppose I was reacting hypersensitively to what I perceived as overt hypersensitivity.
It is great that little magazines can continue to run lean and mean and keep going while overhead-laden, advertiser-beholden behemoths flatline. So while his quip was off (especially as it's more publishorial than editorial a decision to shutter), there is a gem there if you wade through the shit.
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
In the pic, is that Caprica 6?
[hey, give me a a slight break, we all can't be equally interested in the travails of Neal Boulton]
02/26/09
02/26/09
Unfortunately I receive Genre magazine-one of those "perks" that one gets for renewing one's gay.com premium membership. Gee--thanks, PlanetOut, Inc. I'll have you know that when I get those "discretely" packaged, shrink-wrapped magazines in the mail, they go directly in to the trash.
02/26/09
02/26/09
Also, if you're unfamiliar with the term pansexual, maybe you shouldn't be covering the queer beat? It's not like it's some wacky, make-believe term that he came up with all on his own.
02/26/09
02/26/09
More to the point, it's a term that has been meaningfully used by multiple communities over a long period of time.
By the way, I would never use it to describe myself. I'm clearly a butt-pirate.
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
When we discover a person who like to fuck flowers, owls and the law of thermodynamics that person will be deemed a "pansexual." See, there is a system to language and no matter how much any idiot would like to lower the bar for their particular purpose, we are not going to do that around here.
It's the same reason that I continue to use the word niggardly in public. The LCD can kiss my fucking posterior if they don't understand root words and the way they work.
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
And finally, what does "goodbye" mean to you?
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
Don't use the term "pansexual" if you don't want to. Keep believing that people who use it should be fucking a flower if that makes you feel happy and settled. But you're not going to undo decades of academic queer theory with an adherence to the original Webster dictionary -- that's the same technique used by ultra-fundamentalist Christian home schoolers to preserve a sense of connection to the "real meanings of things, when we had values". The home schoolers, I guess, are raising the bar of language use.
02/26/09
02/26/09
BTW, I think everyone should do whomever they want whenever they want and however they want.
"Pansexual" is a poor choice for the idea people are attempting to express here. Ryan was making fun of that word choice, not the idea, in the post. SG is wrong to tell Ryan he can't cover LBGT issues because he is making fun of the word. That's all.
02/26/09
Transgendered people fit into one of those categories, unless we're going to treat them like they're alien beings and require a third category to include them. I think that's condescending beyond belief.
Saythatscool has time and again proven he's not only open-minded but intellectually independent, and I for one find that vastly preferable to the sheep in tranny's clothing who mandate we all adhere to some PC dictionary that needs updating every time the wind blows or someone gets bored of being part of a minority that, thankfully, grows more accepted by the day.
Comparing him -- and by extension, the rest of us -- to "ultra-fundamentalist Christian home schoolers" is not only outrageous but will also ultimately undermine your cause. We're not the enemies, no matter how much you seem to wish that were the case.
02/26/09
02/26/09
Ah think yer misundersexualizing this issue. Let's get this straight: there is 3 kinds of peeple 1) Heterosexuals 2) Homosexuals 3) Sexuals that will attack an open can of asparagus. Nuff said.
02/26/09
02/26/09
@LetsHaveAKeithParty: You said wiener. Ha! I will drink to that.
02/26/09
02/27/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
Pansexuality is all good in the hood till he passes on something to you that causes a REAL "irate lady source."
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08