Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

[angelfromanotherpin]

What's the base pretentiousness of self-proclaimed omnisexuals?

Omnisexual is an outdated term; these days they prefer fornigalactic.

[fectin]

Wasn't that a Beastie Boys track?

[RadiantPhoenix]

Ah, so it's just about sex/gender/etc.

There was a time when I had never even considered the possibility that some people might not consider 'bisexual' to imply all permutations of male and female.

[schpeelah]

I think that is the one where you accept that gender is a social construct and you fall along various points on it and don't care too much. I'm not sure.

Genderqueer is where you treat male-female as a continuum and are on some point in the middle, while genrderfluid means you keep changing your mind about what point that is.

What's the unit and/or scale here (I have no idea what those numbers represent)?

Is it pretentious to bring up romantic orientation?

Now I'm wondering about that scale too. Where would one put multiples? Multiple personalities, excuse me multiple people inside one head, 'personalities' is rude. Children and fictional characters are a definite possibility, so it inherently must be higher than otherkin.

[Kaelik]

Now I'm wondering about that scale too. Where would one put multiples? Multiple personalities, excuse me multiple people inside one head, 'personalities' is rude. Children and fictional characters are a definite possibility, so it inherently must be higher than otherkin.

Oh please god no. Just don't.

[Mistborn]

So I've been wondering. Most projections have the GOP taking the senate this November, what are the odds that they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with another 'legitimate rape" style gaff?

[Username17]

So I've been wondering. Most projections have the GOP taking the senate this November, what are the odds that they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with another 'legitimate rape" style gaff?

The issue is that 36 senate seats are having elections, and 21 of those seats are currently held by Democrats. Democrats are defending 6 more seats than Republicans are, and if the Republicans flip 6 senate seats they get a senatorial majority and force Obama to veto a lot.

Most specifically, the Democrats are trying to hold onto senate seats in Arkansas, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virgina, which they probably won't do. So if the Republicans can win any two of the more competitive races (Louisiana, North Carolina, Michigan, Alaska), then they take the senate. Meanwhile, the Republicans aren't running any senate elections in blue states, making the chances of truly flipping the script thin indeed.

Still, Obamacare continues to become more popular and more obviously a success story, and the Republicans keep living in a fantasy world where they can run on repealing it and replacing it with... something that they haven't actually written or even agreed on the vague outline of in five fucking years of trying to come up with a plan. So it's not inconceivable that some of the red states could become competitive races in the near future. Kentucky, for example, has had a red senate seat since 1985 but Mitch McConnell now has an underwater approval rating and is actually less popular in Kentucky than Obama.

And of course, Republicans have an uncanny ability to talk about how rape babies are a gift from god and refer to mothers as "hosts" and stuff, so it seems pretty likely that the Republicans can manage to lose a couple of seats that they expected to win just because they accidentally used their outside voice when talking about some of the less popular portions of their agenda.

Honestly, while the Republicans picking up some senate seats is virtually a certainty, and them picking up enough senate seats to become the senate majority is certainly possible, my look at the electoral map predicts that they are going to end up with about 49 seats +/- 1, which will leave the status quo essentially as-is.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

What's the worst syndicated American newspaper comic that's currently being published in at least 100 newspapers?

I want to say Mark Trail, though I think you can make a strong case for Apartment 3G or Mary Worth.

[Koumei]

What's the worst syndicated American newspaper comic that's currently being published in at least 100 newspapers?

Honestly, I'm not sure any political/newspaper comic is good. Even the left-wing ones don't tend to be funny, just vindictive and angry about things (and I don't need the newspaper to agree with me on being angry, that's what co-workers, some family, and the Den are for). And the right-wing ones, well... yeah. They cover the exact same range as the actual right-wing groups, from "merely wrong about the actual world" to "horrendous racists who support actual human rights abuses".

Oh hey, Cracked decided to talk about that. Twice.

And then there's this tumbler for your daily rage.

I'm aware that these are all found on the Internet, so may or may not be connected to actual newspapers, by the way. But I just wanted to share the misery of knowing they exist.

(That last one: isn't that basically an argument tzor tried to make? That "long ago the Democrats were the racists, therefore that's you right now, you're the bad guys!")

[John Magnum]

What's really great with some of the conservative newspaper comics like Prickly City is that they're not just lazily regurgitating right-wing talking points, they're doing so like a month or two late. Now, to be fair, with some issues like Benghazi they repeat the same nonsensical claims for literal years straight. But other times it's sort of funny seeing how far behind they are.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, how about having two categories for this question: ostensibly political comics (Doonesbury, Mallard Fillmore, etc.) and ones that aren't (Dick Tracy, Garfield, etc.)?

[Koumei]

...oh right. I didn't recognise any of the names you put up there, so I assumed they were all political ones and that's what you meant.

I have a particular hate of For Better or Worse, that started with "This is not funny, it's just trying to tell a not-very-good story with DEEP SERIOSE MEANING, four panels at a time" and then got worse when I realised how fucking crazy the author was. (Compare with something like Zits or whatever it was called, which could at least be funny sometimes, particularly to a teenager, the target audience.)

It's also said that on the day Fred Basset is funny, disaster will sweep across the land and billions will perish. Luckily that has yet to happen. As a dog owner, I can clearly see that it's observational comedy, where you go "Yes, I have a dog that does these sorts of things!" And of course, if you say that, you realise you already have a dog that does those things, you have all you need, the comic does nothing.

Garfield is kind of in the same camp, but when I was young I enjoyed reading it (in the "book full of strips" format) and watching the cartoon, and also, the author for that is very sensible - he churns it all out strictly for cash, as it's his job, and he doesn't get weirdly attached to the characters or anything.

So I'd probably say FBoW, but Fred is annoyingly unfunny as well. Then there's... okay, typically you get a bunch of the 4-panel ones on a page, and then you have two one-panel pieces. One is Far Side stuff, and is funny. The one next to it, I can't remember its name, but it is not funny. I think it's just the name of a character in it. But that one's pretty shit.

[violence in the media]

Family Circle is pretty awful too.

[fbmf]

Its all been downhill since Calvin and Hobbes left off, but I remember Bloom County and Liberty Meadows fondly.

Game On,
fbmf

[Prak]

Zits is also generally funny to parents of teenagers as well. It's like dog observational comics, except it manages to be funny.

I concur on Garfield- when I was a kid, I ate that shit up.

The funny thing with the "Far Side stuff" is that ever since Gary Larson stopped doing Far Side, people have been desperately trying to fill the void, (and before, they were just trying to replicate his fame) and they are all failing. The comic that comes closest is Bizarro, and mostly because it's not actually trying to be Far Side, and it has the same twisted sort of mind behind it.

[Whipstitch]

One is Far Side stuff, and is funny.

Speaking of Farside, just imagine how many fucking labels would be involved if a political cartoonist attempted to pull off just a single Gary Larson joke.

[Prak]

I've actually had debates with people about labeling in political cartoons. I've done a few for my college paper, and I'm of the mind that if your comic needs labels, you're sucking at your job.

[TiaC]

B.C. has climbed out of its pit since its creator's death. It's now merely bad rather than the horrible rambling of a born-again christian.

Pearls before Swine is one of the better ones out there.

[Korgan0]

What does "pansexual" mean?

I definitely get the vibe that it doesn't mean you're sexually into literally everything (i.e., wood-chippers are right out), but how far does it extend?

• Squirrels?
• Zombies?
• Branding?
• Amputation?
• Coprophilia?
• Armpit sex?
• Hairjobs?

Or is it just a new buzzword for what I thought bisexual meant?

EDIT: Let me rephrase that: What should I assume people actually mean when they describe someone (e.g., themselves) as pansexual?

Basically pansexuality assumes that it's a legitimate sexual orientation to somehow not be attracted to trans people , because trans people, despite the realities of SRS and hormone therapy, have something that somehow magically makes them "not real" women/men. That, or it assumes that it's somehow legitimate to not be attracted to people outside the gender binary in some meangingful way. Basically, it's a way of legitimating transphobia.

[Kaelik]

Basically pansexuality assumes that it's a legitimate sexual orientation to somehow not be attracted to trans people , because trans people, despite the realities of SRS and hormone therapy, have something that somehow magically makes them "not real" women/men. That, or it assumes that it's somehow legitimate to not be attracted to people outside the gender binary in some meangingful way. Basically, it's a way of legitimating transphobia.

That's weird, because who besides pansexuals (whatever they are) would invent the term pansexual?

It sounds like you are saying that there exist a subset of people who are attracted to men and women, trans and not, and those people are also transphobes.

[DSMatticus]

and those people are also transphobes.

I think this is an overreach. For example, I'm of the opinion that continuing to use racial constructs provides a framework for racism to occur, and we'd better off as a society if we could set up a situation in which those constructs organically fell out of use. But I don't think people who value their race as a part of their identity are racists.

Korgan's use of the word legitimate is perhaps a little overly aggressive, but the core point's solid. If you don't acknowledge that women and transwomen are distinct (say, because you believe both women and transwomen are evaluated to be attractive using the same metrics - the viewer's ideals concerning female traits), then being attracted to women and not transwomen doesn't make a lot of sense. In cases where an individual doesn't match the viewer's ideal concerning female traits, then it doesn't matter whether they're a woman or a transwoman - that individual's just not attractive to the viewer. In cases where an individual does match the viewer's ideal concerning female traits, but the viewer later discovers what is now a vagina was once a penis and is suddenly grossed out, that sounds more like a gay panic social phenomenon than a matter of sexual attraction.

Pansexuality validates the notion that sexual attraction to women and sexual attraction to transwomen are different things, but it seems much more accurate to say that they are the same thing and then for reasons completely unrelated to sexual attractiveness some people will flip out at the prospect of banging a transexual. Similarly, you could make an argument that most people evaluate intersex and androgynous individuals within the gender binary, they're found attractive due to the extent they match one of the viewer's ideals concerning the gender binary, and then people flip out or do not flip out about incongruencies for social reasons (i.e., a chick with a dick is still >99% chick, but that <1% makes a big deal in people's feelings on the matter).

At the very least, I think there's a lot of people who claim to be pansexual whose sexuality falls fairly neatly into the gender binary, and all they're really saying is "if it's attractive to me, I don't sweat the little things."

[Prak]

What does "pansexual" mean?

I definitely get the vibe that it doesn't mean you're sexually into literally everything (i.e., wood-chippers are right out), but how far does it extend?

• Squirrels?
• Zombies?
• Branding?
• Amputation?
• Coprophilia?
• Armpit sex?
• Hairjobs?

Or is it just a new buzzword for what I thought bisexual meant?

EDIT: Let me rephrase that: What should I assume people actually mean when they describe someone (e.g., themselves) as pansexual?

Basically pansexuality assumes that it's a legitimate sexual orientation to somehow not be attracted to trans people , because trans people, despite the realities of SRS and hormone therapy, have something that somehow magically makes them "not real" women/men. That, or it assumes that it's somehow legitimate to not be attracted to people outside the gender binary in some meangingful way. Basically, it's a way of legitimating transphobia.

Um, no, no it's not, because let me tell you, I am transgender, and I am pansexual. In fact, a lot of transgender people I know are pansexual, and a lot of pansexual people I know are transgender (or genderfluid).

Pansexual is a term that basically says "There are people who will bang guys and chicks, but not necessarily androgynous or genderfluid people. I will bang anyone who's attractive to me and willing, and I don't much care what they identify as, including 'both,' 'neither,' or 'fuck gender identities."

It does not, necessarily, say that women and transwomen are different categories for the purposes of attraction. (However, 'transwoman who still has her penis,' for example, is, for practical purposes, a separate category that not everyone will be into.)

[PoliteNewb]

Basically pansexuality assumes that it's a legitimate sexual orientation to somehow not be attracted to trans people , because trans people, despite the realities of SRS and hormone therapy, have something that somehow magically makes them "not real" women/men. That, or it assumes that it's somehow legitimate to not be attracted to people outside the gender binary in some meangingful way. Basically, it's a way of legitimating transphobia.

Uh, it is a legitimate sexual orientation to not be attracted to trans people. Or white people. Or any kind of people you're not attracted to. Because who you are or are not attracted to is legitimate, and no one's business but yours. No one has a right to be found sexy.

Now, whether or not that transphobic depends on your definitions. But I personally think you can be supportive of trans people (as in their rights to exist, be respected, have loving relationships, etc) without necessarily wanting to bang them, personally.

This is from a person who has no issue with sexing transpersons.

Not being attracted to white people does not make you a racist, regardless of what color you are. Sexuality is a weird and funky and deeply personal thing, and does not necessarily have anything to do with how you treat people in a non-sexual fashion.

[DSMatticus]

Pansexual is a term that basically says "There are people who will bang guys and chicks, but not necessarily androgynous or genderfluid people. I will bang anyone who's attractive to me and willing, and I don't much care what they identify as, including 'both,' 'neither,' or 'fuck gender identities."

It does not, necessarily, say that women and transwomen are different categories for the purposes of attraction. (However, 'transwoman who still has her penis,' for example, is, for practical purposes, a separate category that not everyone will be into.)

Androgynous itself is a spectrum, and it's very easy to imagine a person who is nominally androgynous being sexually attractive for their feminine or masculine traits to hetero/homo/bisexuals who are attracted to that particular gender. Genderfluid just describes someone who is inconsistent in their expression of gender, and obviously any particular expression du jour (or several) could catch the fancy of a hetero/homo/bisexual. And I reject the notion that a transwoman with penis is a wholly separate category. A lot of people are going to evaluate that person's attractiveness based on how well they live up to the viewer's ideals of female beauty, and then either be uncomfortable/flip out or not about the penis thing for reasons unrelated to those ideals.

A lot of the behaviors that fall under the umbrella of pansexuality also happen with people whose sexual preferences hold to the gender binary. Wanting to bang something that looks like a dude/dudette because it looks like a dude/dudette really isn't an exception to the standard rules, even if the thing you want to bang doesn't fit perfectly to the conceptual dude/dudette - very few actual dudes/dudettes do to begin with. This isn't to say that there aren't people who exist and have gender expressions and sexual preferences that don't fit the gender binary. There very clearly are. But behaviorally speaking, a lot of the things under pansexuality's umbrella also happen in people whose sexual preferences hold to the gender binary, making a complicated matter even more complicated.

Uh, it is a legitimate sexual orientation to not be attracted to trans people. Or white people. Or any kind of people you're not attracted to. Because who you are or are not attracted to is legitimate, and no one's business but yours. No one has a right to be found sexy.

Focus less on the legitimate part and more on the sexual orientation part. As in, do you think the reason people find trans individuals unattractive is a matter of their sexual preference or social norms? The part of your brain that decides who you find bangable is only a subset of the part of your brain that decides who to bang, and so there are obviously factors that will lead to you choosing not to bang a person that have nothing to do with how bangable you find that person.

[Kaelik]

A lot of people are going to evaluate that person's attractiveness based on how well they live up to the viewer's ideals of female beauty, and then either be uncomfortable/flip out or not about the penis thing for reasons unrelated to those ideals.

You keep saying this, and I don't understand how you cannot see the obvious incorrectness.

If there is a woman, and you are attracted to women, and she is attractive to you, but then she has a penis, your decision to not have sex with her is very very likely to be based on the fact that she does note meat your ideals of female beauty.