Yeahhhh. After that, bisexual barely even registers on the radar. Everything goes.
Lando Calrissian's Sexuality
- Thread starter LJones41
- Start date
Yeahhhh. After that, bisexual barely even registers on the radar. Everything goes.
Which actually brings up a pretty disturbing notion. From a purely technical point of view, robots can be programmed to consent. Which I guess is no longer true consent.
Well Lando's robot co pilot was fighting for robot rights in the movie. Was that programmed by Lando ?
I haven't seen the movie yet. I just saw your post about consensual robot sex, and the thought popped in my head about how a robot can be programmed to consent. That's all it was, a hypothetical scenario I decided to comment about.
I vaguely remember (from the old EU maybe) that consciousness/personality is something of an emergent property in Droids, which is why most of them are regularly wiped to stop them from overriding their base programming.
There is no consent or anything else from the get-go.
Why not? If Lando is being set up as the SW equivalent of Captain Jack, why not.
Robots are programmed by humans in real life. If it cared it would not do what it was programmed to do. It's a box of silicon chips and flashing lights. It's a machine. Anthropomorphizing them is great for emotion-massage entertainment, but in real life it's all a pile of fresh steaming beagledip on the sidewalk.
And the actors all love it because it's empty hyped publicity for them to laugh all the way to the bank with. It's just a job. In an industry that sells lies by its very nature, which is what acting is about. They won't care until after they get typecast and only if that happens in a good way, noting how many actors get typecast and it takes decades before the stigma of being the character was.
Apart from alcohol-soaked clean-up wipes and a dirty magazine with corners bent as makeshift bookmarks for the good pages, that is?
I'm not going to psychoanalyze everyone's reasoning, but there can be reasons other than insinuation of phobia, which becomes a form of phobia in of itself...
After rewatching TESB with Lando's introduction, it is not inconceivable that Lando is bisexual or whatever. Do most people really care? No. Would they prefer Lando show emotional attachment rather than using everyone as a receptacle? That's up to each individual to decide on their own. Do some people need to see someone on screen who does the things they do or look the same way or else they'll go nuts? As with the others, for some it's "no" and for others it's "yes".
But it's interesting nobody has resorted to the occasionally touted claim of "it's okay to not be hetero as long as one isn't a good guy" - which Lando wasn't until the very end of TESB, BTW.
Remember, pansexual also implies an emotional connection/attachment, which is part of its definition. So let's actually think and talk about Just how does someone develop emotional attachment to an artificially made sex toy, which is all a robot is given the context. The answer is astonishingly simple: There's no such attachment to begin with, whether it's mutual or one-sided (from the human, computers don't have emotions nor can they relate. Even people with Aspger's Syndrome are more likely to), so it's still rubbish.
If pansexuality includes other sentient species, then it's rubbish because humans are the only sentient species that humans know about right now and conflating real life with sci-fantasy is silly. Or is "pansexuality" trying to condone bestiality, which is gross but if someone really has such an emotional attachment coupled with a physical one and the feelings are reciprocated in the way that animals can't...
Even the fictional android, Commander Data, said he had no emotional attachments to or about anyone, except for the one-off episode "The Measure of a Man" where it was artificially induced to make a storyline be more than 43 minutes of inanity. Heck, he didn't feel sorrow over his offspring's, Lol's, death. (Should have been "Lol" instead of "Lal" because LOL is all one can really do over the sheer absurdity of that episode yet it's not "Red Dwarf".)
Labeling happens everywhere for all sorts of things, not just sexual-based categorization. It makes things easier for people to understand or relate to (in bad or good ways, hence "stereotyping" and "reverse-stereotyping") and, as with all things, labels sometimes get misused or changed or expanded (legitimately or artificially, the latter known as "conflating".)
To your question of why would people cut off relationships in the first place? Do you ask your current partners about the situation of when someone else you want to hop on stops by or do you end the relationship or ask for polyfidelity or are people just objects like what Gene Roddenberry was saying in the 1970s, or what? No need to answer, your personal life is yours but each of us as individuals have what we look for in preferences and as long as people are honest, which most people are, that's all that matters. I imagine plenty of people elsewhere have numerous possible answers for your question, if not answered elsewhere.
Forgetting that things perceived as being better will always exist. And if emotions are involved, then ditching people for others still isn't exactly well-received by the bulk of society regardless of what one does in their personal lives. Is there a poll that shows the majority of the population having changed their proverbial tune on that issue? Right now, I've only seen more and more articles about people growing old alone... for having alleged emotional attachment, is that really the case?
I'm bi, but if you want to talk about internalized homophobia before anyone accuses me of it, I know a few people that should be talked to about that since they have it in spades.
I'm going to go with Robosexual
Lobot wasn't a robot, he was an artificially enhanced human being and we have no idea what his emotional capacities were, certainly occams razor would have us suspect they're not reduced given the fact actual droids in SW are entirely capable of emotional attachments.
But in some ways droids in SW are more sophisticated than Data, we see the one domensional combat droids, but C3PO would more than adequately pass the Turing test and shows a wide and comprehensive emotional range, including affection and love. Why reduce the expression of sexuality therefore to cold biological processes?
Lobot had emotions for a while and was Lando's buddy, his brain implant eventually took over and suppressed his emotions and personality. Lando keeps him around out of loyalty to his old friend who sacrificed his mind to save Lando.
Guess I should have watched the film!
In either case though the point remains Lando has an emotional connection to him, even if he is having sex with him it isn't a case of "using him as a receptacle" as per @Cutie McWhiskers implication, there's no reason to associate pansexuailty with cold, emotionless expressions of that sexuality.
Could someone tell me the difference between bi-sexual and pan-sexual? Their was a time we I thought I might be Bi-sexual but then maybe it was Bi-Curious and now i'm not even sure. Either way it seems like a okay idea. It feels like retro-active canon but it's not a Greedo shooting first moment.
Jason
Jason
In sci-fi I'd think most people would be pansexual. When sleeping with aliens there is nothing to say they would have the same sex structure as humans, there could be a race out there where a tall, curvaceous, leggy, three-breasted blonde is the male of a species.
We can't judge gender and relationships in a futuristic setting by our standards.
We can't judge gender and relationships in a futuristic setting by our standards.
It's in a Lando comic, part of the new canon. Lobot was basically his Chewie.
Simple way of looking at it is bi sexual means attracted in principle to both men and women but typically in different ways, whereas pansexual means taking the concept of gender out of the equation altogether. In the real world that means also being attracted to non gender binary people and not making any distinctions on the various spectra of gender neutrality, whereas in sci fi it tends to also be inclusive of other species and modalities of sex altogether.
Bisexual means that you're attracted to men and women. Pansexual means you're attracted to people regardless of gender.
Similar threads
