Thanks Canofhumdingers for straightening my words back to their original meaning and Screams for acknowledging you overreacted to something you obviously took offence to (which wasn’t my intent).
So to answer your question anyway - no I do not call pansexuals or any other people of any sexual orientation or lackthereof “it”. Canofhumdingers has the right of it and that’s all there is to that particular post.
To expand on it a bit more though on why I’m not enthused by the idea of “Pando Lando” sticking around and becoming part of the collective pop culture and also answer your second question of why it bothers me:
Lando is an established character from nearly 40 years ago that I expect for the majority of people, would come across as a heterosexual “ladies man” as he was portrayed and stereotyped in the way he acted around Leia. Once Han essentially tells him to stop hitting on his love interest and Lando loses Cloud City to become a Rebel, he just becomes one of the gang and we don’t ever get any more information as to what sexually attracts him.
Some people may have taken a different view in feeling he could possibly be bisexual simply due to getting the impression of Lando being a rather promiscuous individual (or so I read, not sure how as I certainly don’t, he simply seems flirtatious with a beautiful woman) and this in turn can and I guess did play into Jonathan Kasdan’s rather random and sudden statement/confirmation in lieu of ‘Solo’ releasing that Lando is pansexual (probably just to generate the reactionary drama he would have known and expected it to create - any press is good press). Pansexuality is really just a broader term that effectively encompasses bisexuality anyway but without trying to place you in one “box” or another, essentially pansexuals have no sexual preference or default orientation when it comes to being attracted to another human. Many people though even in this day and age are still trying to come to terms and understanding with gay and bi, let alone now pan and it is simply not something one even comfortable with these wouldn’t be surprised about to be so openly and suddenly linked with Star Wars which has only ever had heterosexual relationships represented up till that point, hence why it created such a media sensation.
I don’t have a problem myself if there are homosexual, bisexual or pansexual characters in movies. If that is the character and it plays to the story at hand and isn’t shoved in my face just so no one can miss that the movie makers ensured the “representation” box was ticked, then that’s fine.
I object to “Pando Lando” because:
It needlessly alters the fundamentals of a classic character and in effect can retcon many if not all of your memories of said character (a reason I will also never watch Solo…I like Han just the way I know and remember him from the OT).
It puts a spotlight focus on sexual orientation in Star Wars when there never was and never needed to be. Previously you simply had characters who were the way they were without their orientation being highlighted outside of the movies. So if there were characters simply being shown to be attracted to the same sex or other species in the new movies as part of the natural flowing of the story and/or background environment, this would be perfectly fine. While Star Wars clearly is a movie for all ages, that does still include children and so there is no need for blatant advertising and signalling of sexual tendencies and orientations even if that was just for heterosexuality. Adults are smart enough to pick up on these themes and finer details while leaving it obscured enough for children to miss and maintain their innocence until such time as they are ready to notice themselves or be educated on such matters. Star Wars has always done fine without this kind of content just like it has without heavy swearing and obscene cursing which is actually a really nice change when many other movies use obscene language for every other word because they have no other way to create impact in the dialogue.
“Pando Lando” is in itself not accurate but attached to the understanding that in Solo, Lando is maybe pansexual in his orientation but is actually inferred (a number of times as I understand) to be attracted and engage in mechanophilia / robosexuality with his droid counterpart L33T. Now that is really something that is not needed in Star Wars nor to be reminded of when references are made to it in memes.
Basically if Dryden Vos (the main bad guy?) and Qi’ra are indicated to be sexual partners (which I think is inferred as the case?) but then Vos is also shown to leer at a group scantily clad male and alien sex slaves and is inferred to take them to bed sometimes before turning back and killing someone or doing something evil, there’s your pansexual character and if it’s worked logically into the story somehow or kept to the background where it doesn’t overtly distract from the main story then that would have been completely fine.
The difference is, it’s not a core original character we already know, there’s no one shouting “there are pansexuals in Star Wars!?” before the movie releases and kids have no real idea about what’s going on in that scene apart from the baddie being evil as expected (in relation to it being the bad character, you can of course have one of the good characters have a similar scene as they pass through a cantina or something).
Anyway this post is getting a bit lengthy so I might stop it there and wait to see where this discussion goes before continuing 😉
But I will say there would be nothing wrong at all with the meme oojason posted if it didn’t have L33T hanging off of his shoulder. It would then refer to the Lando of old that we already knew…
Also, I just wanted to point out your use of “it” here:
screams in the void said:
…why does it bother you ?