Fiction: A Couple Questions 'bout Writing Orientations

[ThinkMinty]

I've got a character I'm working on for a writing thing, and I've realized by spending a little time in her head that she's probably pansexual/panromantic, but she isn't aware of it. She's not closeted (and if she knew, she'd be cheerfully honest about it, she's...very valiant about everything), she just hasn't explored the possibility despite having openly queer friends. Not exactly why she hasn't figured it out, but she's a teenager so that might have somethin' to do with it. For the sake of discussion, we'll call her Q.

I don't plan on making Q remotely angsty about it; when she figures it out, she'd probably be ecstatic 'cuz there's many more people to cuddle.

On a very tangentially related note, there's an ex in her backstory who's what I'm calling "Goodsexual"; he's attracted to virtue rather than gender. I honestly just made that up on the spot a few weeks ago, and it doesn't sound problematic, but it might be so I'm floating the idea by the Playground.
EDIT: Goodsexual's kinda a bad idea, I guess. It was intended to be like sapiosexual, but for heroism instead of brainyness. Q and her non-angsty lack of awareness regarding her queerness is more the the question I'm concerned with getting answered, since backstory characters are usually unlikely to show up in the present.

[Cristo Meyers]

On a very tangentially related note, there's an ex in her backstory who's what I'm calling "Goodsexual"; he's attracted to virtue rather than gender. I honestly just made that up on the spot a few weeks ago, and it doesn't sound problematic, but it might be so I'm floating the idea by the Playground.

Biggest issue I can think of is that your intent (Good-sexual) might get lost as readers just interpret that as just being bisexual with an attraction to a specific type.

[ThinkMinty]

Biggest issue I can think of is that your intent (Good-sexual) might get lost as readers just interpret that as just being bisexual with an attraction to a specific type.

I figured that might be a response, I just thought of it like some sort of an extrapolation of pansexuality. If gender wasn't the motivator for attraction for some people, what would be? It'd be some other selective quality, and morality seemed like a fun one.

[Threadnaught]

Goodsexual, reminds me of "heterosexual sex is the only good sex."

It is confusing, come up with a name that doesn't imply that certain practices are the "right" thing to do.
Try soulsexual (because of an attraction to a person's soul).

[ThinkMinty]

Goodsexual, reminds me of "heterosexual sex is the only good sex."

It either has bigoted implications, or is confusing, come up with a name that doesn't imply that certain ignorant practices are the "right" thing to do while implying doing anything else to be "degeneracy" as if that by itself is bad.
Try soulsexual (because of an attraction to a person's soul), or chrisexual (because christyn means essence).

They're someone sexually attracted to goodness. I dunno what else to call that, and Chrisexual sounds even worse, implications-wise.

[Mammal]

Hi, I identify as bi or pansexual! I can only speak for my personal experiences, but I don't differentiate much between the two terms--there are certainly people who insist that bisexual means one thing and pansexual means another, but eh. I'm attracted to people of all genders, but it would be inaccurate to say that gender isn't a factor in attraction. There are certain traits that I find extremely appealing in people of one gender, but not another. For example, I think short hair is especially attractive on women, but I have no preferences re: men's hairstyles. It's fluid and complex and differs wildly from person to person. For example, I'm much more attracted to women and gender-non-conforming individuals than I am to men (Kinsey 4 or 5, if that helps!) If I'm coming out to people who don't know much about LGBTQIA+ things, I'll usually describe myself as a lesbian, with the caveat that Idris Elba is very handsome.

re: "Goodsexual." Ehhhhhhhh. I don't like the concept for two reason: first, most people are attracted to 'good' people. To me, that seems more like a preference than a distinct sexual orientation (gentlemen prefer blondes, but that doesn't make them blondesexual--even if blonde hair is a prerequisite for attraction, they're still not considered blondesexual). Secondly, 'goodness' is really subjective. I'm always leery of authors who declare certain characters to be uniformly Good and others to be irredeemably Evil, much less authors who use that as a basis for a character's sexual identity. Unless you stress that the character is attracted to people that he considers virtuous or that there's some sort of in-universe moral system (very active and present gods, mind-reading future robots, idk) I'd shy away from using that label, especially within the story. Even if the character exclusively dates 'good' people, there are subtler ways to handle it than slapping a label on his behavior.

[Threadnaught]

They're someone sexually attracted to goodness. I dunno what else to call that,

Well if you're going to explicitly state it, then you'd avoid the problem of implying that certain practices are the only correct way to love.
Although, your own morality may seep into the character and you may find yourself writing about your perfect partner.

[ThinkMinty]

Hi, I identify as bi or pansexual! I can only speak for my personal experiences, but I don't differentiate much between the two terms--there are certainly people who insist that bisexual means one thing and pansexual means another, but eh. I'm attracted to people of all genders, but it would be inaccurate to say that gender isn't a factor in attraction. There are certain traits that I find extremely appealing in people of one gender, but not another. For example, I think short hair is especially attractive on women, but I have no preferences re: men's hairstyles. It's fluid and complex and differs wildly from person to person.

Fluidity is neat.


For example, I'm much more attracted to women and gender-non-conforming individuals than I am to men (Kinsey 4 or 5, if that helps!) If I'm coming out to people who don't know much about LGBTQIA+ things, I'll usually describe myself as a lesbian, with the caveat that Idris Elba is very handsome.

I'm a Kinsey 0. There was a point where I thought it might be more in the 1-2 range, but experimentation confirmed the 0.


re: "Goodsexual." Ehhhhhhhh. I don't like the concept for two reason: first, most people are attracted to 'good' people. To me, that seems more like a preference than a distinct sexual orientation (gentlemen prefer blondes, but that doesn't make them blondesexual--even if blonde hair is a prerequisite for attraction, they're still not considered blondesexual). Secondly, 'goodness' is really subjective. I'm always leery of authors who declare certain characters to be uniformly Good and others to be irredeemably Evil, much less authors who use that as a basis for a character's sexual identity. Unless you stress that the character is attracted to people that he considers virtuous or that there's some sort of in-universe moral system (very active and present gods, mind-reading future robots, idk) I'd shy away from using that label, especially within the story. Even if the character exclusively dates 'good' people, there are subtler ways to handle it than slapping a label on his behavior.

Goodsexual seemed like a good idea when I thought of it, but in retrospect I don't care for it enough to use.


Well if you're going to explicitly state it, then you'd avoid the problem of implying that certain outdated practices are the only correct way to love.

That's probably better than a label.

However, I'm not liking the implication you pulled out of thin air that assumed I thought heterosexuality was the only right thing when I've said nothing of the sort and don't believe it. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

If I was gonna claim anything was the proper way, I'd say good/morally upright practices revolve around consent, and that "degeneracy" would be...well, rapists and those who preach apologetics for such.


Although, your own morality may seep into the character and you may find yourself writing about your perfect partner.

Pre-emptively avoided. Character (who is both purely hypothetical and minor in role) has a different worldview than I do on multiple subjects, including metaphysics.


Ah crap, yeah I see it.

Good. Your suggestion had more ****ed up implications than mine did.


It would be better to make the character an atheist and give them the gender of either cis-woman, trans-woman

Character already identifies as male (as far as he's aware, anyways), and while I'm an atheist, both of the characters mentioned are...similar to Quakers in outlook.


or immortal god.

Gods don't exist in the setting. People worship them, but they're not real or they're not gods. Atheist writer here, under no obligation to create a setting where I'm more wrong about that than I am in regular reality.

Make the most prevalent antagonist a bigoted man who leads a cult.

Why's the cult leader gotta be male? What, ladies can't lead cults? There's historic evidence to the contrary. 'sides, the antagonism slots are pretty full for a while. Also...eh, I don't really want to explain my actual feelings on the definition of a cult, might get me in trouble with moderators.

[Threadnaught]

That's probably better than a label.

Indeed, actions have always spoken louder than words. Labels being the words and the descriptions being the actions.


However, I'm not liking the implication you pulled out of thin air that assumed I thought heterosexuality was the only right thing when I've said nothing of the sort and don't believe it. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

We live in a society where bigots declare that their favoured relationships are the only right and good forms of romance/sex. I didn't pull the implication from you, but from what you had said and how closely it matched the older statements of bigotry. The implication was there, whether you intended it or not.


Pre-emptively avoided. Character (who is both purely hypothetical and minor in role) has a different worldview than I do on multiple subjects, including metaphysics.

I like your confidence.

[ThinkMinty]

I like your confidence.

Can I sig this?


We live in a heteronormative society where bigots have declared that heterosexual relationships are the only right and good forms of romance/sex for decades. I didn't pull the implication from you, but from what you had said and how closely it matched the statements of bigotry. The implication was thee, whether you intended it or not.

I'm entirely aware of heteronormativity; it's fun-stifling enough that being heterosexual doesn't save you (mitigates to a hefty extent) from being smacked around for doing anything unusual in the eyes of douchebags. For example, people get...weird if your girlfriend is taller than you, even if she's a cute patoot. More importantly, I see what heteronormativity does to people who aren't me, and that just...boils the blood, to a greater degree than I can elaborate on in polite company. My threshold for other people being subjected to cruel nonsense is much lower than my threshold with that in regards to myself.

I still don't get where you got the implications from, unless you wanted them to be there.


I was referring to gender identity, not banned topics. Immortal god is a gender neutral pronoun.

Since when, and cite a source for that, it sounds really dumb without context. I'm aware of stuff like gender fluidity, bigender, neutrois, agender, I just...that one sounds like I'm being messed with.


It's not about women not being able to lead cults, but more about distancing the heteronormative and religious implications created by Goodsexual and Chrisexual respectively. By making an irredeemable villain into a member of the opposite gender to this "hypothetical" character and making them the leader of a cult that worships a non-existent being, you distance the character from the implications so they're no longer under any scrutiny.

Scrutiny from you. There's got to be a point where trying to avoid any possible implications is itself problematic. Sorta like when they ended up whitewashing Khan in Star Trek: Into Darkness to avoid implications, but they end up depriving an Indian actor of the iconic role due to fear of the implications. "We're trying not to look racist, so we hired the white guy instead of you." sounds...off, right?

[Threadnaught]

Can I sig this?

I have no problems with people quoting me, if you were to sig me, that would just be a more widespread way of quoting my statement.

Go ahead.


I still don't get where you got the implications from, unless you wanted them to be there.

You put "goodsexual" out yourself, here in order to find out whether or not it could be problematic. How you described it, no, but the name is. If you mention the orientation "goodsexual" there are people who will latch on and declare it the "correct" orientation.

It's not about wanting implications, but answering the question "could this be problematic?" And I have given my answer.


Scrutiny from you.

You literally asked for scrutiny.

[ThinkMinty]

I have no problems with people quoting me, if you were to sig me, that would just be a more widespread way of quoting my statement.

Go ahead.

Already done.


I'm entirely aware of heteronormativity;

]Then I shouldn't need to explain how it is harmful to impressionable young people and society as a whole.

Agreed. I know it's not the same as being queer, but I can relate on some level with my own problems. The fear of being regarded as a deviant for bein' attracted to/preferring fat girls was something I was closeted about until this summer. So far people have been...well, a lot better than expected, but holy **** that was some stressful **** to deal with. If any more discussion of this particular subject I just raised is wanted and/or necessitated by what I just said/brought up, I'd prefer it in a PM.


You put "goodsexual" out yourself, here in order to find out whether or not it could be problematic. How you described it, no, but the name is. If you mention the orientation "goodsexual" there are people who will latch on and declare it the "correct" orientation.

It's not about wanting implications, but answering the question "could this be problematic?" And I have given my answer.

That's fair. If anything, benesexual would've been the term I wanted for both linguistic...properness(?) and not being too clumsy a neologism. The core premise was attraction to a character's moral alignment rather than sexuality, and the character in question is...magical girl/paladin-esque in job? So's Q, tha's how they met.

Of course, a pan/poly guy does...essentially the same thing narratively, so I should most likely just go with that.


I remember it from a clip I saw a long time ago, sadly I can't seem to find it. If I am able to find it in the future, I will share it with you immediately, but for now please avoid hate speech.

I'm an atheist, the specific thing about someone calling themself a god is not something I'm remotely obligated to validate. I'll avoid hate speech towards things that actually exist, but you're asking me to violate my irreligion because of an absurd identity you remember overhearing once.

Seriously, I don't believe in gods, don't ask me to play along.


You literally asked for scrutiny.

...that I did. Touché, or as some say it, toosh.


Yes the bigots of gamergate

**** #GamerGate. They're trying to lionize Jack Thompson; that alone is an unforgivable assault against goodness, freethinking, and fun. On top of that utter profanity, they've allied themselves with the John Birch Society and a carnival of other malefic douchebags. To re-iterate, **** #GamerGate


find the term problematic to be problematic

I, personally, subjectively dislike the term problematic for entirely opposite reasons; it's too broad, clinical, parsimonious, and disingenuous as a word to carry enough punch to strike back at the problem. It feels (as an example) like I'm trying to avoid calling racism racist.

I don't find the word problematic problematic, though; I just think there's always a better word.


and are triggered by videogames without straight white cis men in them.

I started thinking of games that didn't have cishet white guys, and my first thought was Kirby.

Anyways, I have PTSD and people making light of triggers/triggering is somewhat obnoxious, but the joke is funny and I shouldn't sweat the small stuff.


You think Khan Noonien Singh's casting was bad?

Yes, and I like Cumberbatch. I didn't like the magic surgery explanation. He was great as Smaug (at least in the Colbert interview anyways, Tolkien is like ambien to me, even in adaptations)...and now I'm wondering if dragons were real if they'd be upset about being replaced by effects and a VA in live-action roles.

But yes; that casting decision was badly made.


Look at the crew of the Enterprise as a whole, Tiberius Kirk the Captain is a white guy despite Tiberius being an African name (appropriated by the Romans)

James Tiberius Kirk; it's his middle name, I...wait, really? The two origins I found for it both tied back to Roman/Etruscan stuff. I'd like to be proven wrong on this one, though.


, the logical/intellectual aliens and the brute/warrior aliens are also problematic

Planet of Hats is...well, always problematic. Star Trek gets quite acutely and intensely...speciesist/otheringtastic once you're not human anymore.


and there's a lot of tokenism when it comes to the Earth-born characters.

On the one hand, the characters are all amply qualified with the debatable exception of Kirk. On the other...yeah.

[Artman77]

People's upbringing have a lot to do with how they develop sexually; physical abuse, emotional abuse, missing or absent parent(s) and divorce. If her pan-attraction is discovered late, the contributing factors in her background could be more subtle...

[Threadnaught]

Anyways, I have PTSD and people making light of triggers/triggering is somewhat obnoxious, but the joke is funny and I shouldn't sweat the small stuff.

Don't let any trolls (like myself) find you saying that, they/I'll probably mock you or something. You're not a wuss about it are you? Like how I am when crossing the street after being hit by a car. It wasn't traumatic just painful, it wasn't stressful just boring, yet I'm terrified when I see a vehicle approach while I'm crossing the street.


I started thinking of games that didn't have cishet white guys, and my first thought was Kirby.

Kirby is something I really should play sometime, so I can develop a proper opinion about the series. I've still never played Valkyrie Profile and it bothers me, though not as much as being unable to play Vagrant Story and drool over 's arse, they are glorious.


I, personally, subjectively dislike the term [I]problematic for entirely opposite reasons; it's too broad, clinical, parsimonious, and disingenuous as a word to carry enough punch to strike back at the problem. It feels (as an example) like I'm trying to avoid calling racism racist.

I don't find the word problematic problematic, though; I just think there's always a better word.

Well there is one serious problem with the term "problematic", it can be used to describe anything. Rregardless of whether a problem is real or merely perceived.

[ThinkMinty]

Don't let any trolls (like myself) find you saying that, they/I'll probably mock you or something. You're not a wuss about it are you?

Nah, I just get flashbacky nightmares or night terrors about being on the receptor of physically violent child abuse, for the most part. I don't sleep well, and haven't for over a decade...and I'm 23. There isn't really anything...funny about it. It's just **** I gotta deal with; the treatment for PTSD is being allowed to talk about it.


Kirby is something I really should play sometime, so I can develop a proper opinion about the series.

Kirby is very fun, and gets quite intense. I'll recommend starting on Nightmare in Dreamland or Amazing Mirror, as emulation makes those easier to try out. Nightmare in Dreamland is more straightforward with stages, whereas Amazing Mirror has a more sprawling, exploratory system of doors where you can do it entirely out of the intended order if you want to. I've played enough Kirby that I enjoy using the more idiosyncratic powers like Throw just to keep things hilarious.

The cutesy designs for the characters make the violence all the more absurd and cartoonish, Kirby is a really, really fun franchise. The music is also quite infectiously catchy, as demonstrated by Green Greens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6ZRpMegVik).


People's upbringing have a lot to do with how they develop sexually; physical abuse, emotional abuse, missing or absent parent(s) and divorce. If her pan-attraction is discovered late, the contributing factors in her background could be more subtle...

Does between the ages of 14 to 16 count as late? It's not that she hasn't felt it before, it's that she didn't have the specific emotional comprehension to process it.