You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 08:18:07 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Pansexual  (Read 4781 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Pansexual
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2011, 11:31:54 PM »
       Noelle, I haven't said that there is some "inherent" value in simply holding an orientation.  An orientation is not the same thing as a model for what kind of life one prefers.  Values need contexts to make sense.  I've suggested that from what little we know, some orientations seem to be associated more often with certain kinds of social organization.  To simplify things, we might say something like heterosexuality/"straight" has been more often associated with conservative family values and other sexualities ("pan" etc.) somewhat less so.  It's a really broad simplification and I'm not sure how much it really adds.  But since you don't appear to want to discuss the world in any complexity, there's a nutshell.

       If you are only concerned with situations where self-identified pansexuals are certainly claiming they are intrinsically superior -- and you are so convinced that it is meant as you say...  Then I would suggest you are leaning more toward a polemic and not a political exchange.  I'm not sure you are even looking for an explanation, since you seem eager to rule out analogies and similar cases.  As far as I know, if one person says pansexual and another person says queer or bi, we don't often know a lot about just how they differ without asking picky questions. 

       If you don't like to compare and contrast even a little, then I doubt you will really understand the issue you claim to be asking about.  If it's more a complaint about a few very specific and isolated cases of certain discrimination, then we have the Bad and the Ugly too. 

       
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 11:34:18 PM by kylie »

Offline Jude

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2011, 11:41:44 PM »
       Noelle, I haven't said that there is some "inherent" value in simply holding an orientation.  An orientation is not the same thing as a model for what kind of life one prefers.  Values need contexts to make sense.  I've suggested that from what little we know, some orientations seem to be associated more often with certain kinds of social organization.  To simplify things, we might say something like heterosexuality/"straight" has been more often associated with conservative family values and other sexualities ("pan" etc.) somewhat less so.  It's a really broad simplification and I'm not sure how much it really adds.  But since you don't appear to want to discuss the world in any complexity, there's a nutshell.
Red implies that you believe there is value that is not inherent to the position.  Blue and orange, given your distaste for conservative social positions, implies that you believe heterosexuals are more likely to be associated with regressive ideas.  You seem to be expressing the opinion that people who are more sexually open tend to be better people -- at least by secondary associations.  Do you believe this?  Is it accurate to say you believe pansexuals are morally superior to heterosexuals on average then?  And if those things you implied are actually what you intended to say, do you believe there is actual causation between being more sexually available to partners of differing sexes and genders and being a good person?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 11:44:19 PM by Jude »

Offline NoelleTopic starter

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2011, 11:52:21 PM »
First thing, I don't appreciate your thinly-veiled insults to the depths of my interest and intelligence. It's taken me two polite requests to actually get you on topic -- it's not a matter of me not wanting to discuss it because I've told you twice now that I want to engage you in conversation but you cannot seem to state your opinion in a clear and comprehensible manner. I'm trying really hard to understand you because I want to understand you. If you're veering off into tangential topics and you cannot relate them back to the topic at hand (and again, I did ask you to do this in case I was missing the point, to which you replied with more equally vague and seemingly unrelated subjects), then that is, quite frankly, not my problem. Not every thread is yours to discuss "the world in its complexity" as you see fit. I'm sorry if that seems unfair to you, but as I invited you to do so earlier, you are more than welcome to start your own thread to go off on any subject you so choose and I would love to participate on them there.

To respond to your post, for which I thank you for being more succinct about, your opinion makes absolutely no sense. Roughly 10% of the population of the US is gay. Even fewer than that are proclaimed pansexuals. Roughly half of our country leans left, roughly half of the country leans right. 10% of the population does not hold the monopoly on those who lean liberal politically. Yes, it is more likely that heterosexuals will be Republican because at present, not only are there a greater number of heterosexuals to draw in for those numbers (How coincidental, heterosexuals are also more likely to commit murders -- weird how that happens when you have more people in your sample group to draw on) -- but because I would argue that there are a larger "variety" of heterosexuals given that indeed, heterosexuality is the overwhelming norm because of those numbers.

Consider that the Republican agenda repels gays with a few of its policies. As soon as that changes, it is likely that they become more gay-friendly on that issue alone and your point becomes rather baseless because you will see to some extent a shift of gays who are more willing to take on the right-wing agenda, maybe not their present "family values", but especially on matters such as fiscal policy. Of course heterosexuals are always going to be more prone to certain things because of the sheer number of them that encompasses such a large variety of lifestyles and opinions and people, which makes your comparison inherently unfair.

But if what you are doing is suggesting that being gay/pansexual/bisexual gives you the moral high road, then just come out and say it.

The rest of your post is mostly you being backhanded and insulting, so I'm going to ignore it because it's presumptuous and frankly pretty catty of you. I have had no issue discussing this subject with everyone else who has come here to post -- and I have verbally thanked and appreciated everyone who has responded to me thusfar and have given me more to think about, because pansexuality is a subject I am genuinely interested in learning more about and debating in an intelligent, clear, and respectful manner. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 07:13:44 AM by Noelle »

Offline DudelRok

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2011, 04:52:32 AM »
I wonder, though, is it really an accurate label? What if I'm attracted to the genderqueer and women only and don't find any other categories, so to speak, to my taste? I guess what I have trouble wrapping my head around is that there's a catch-all that...doesn't really catch-all? I don't know of anyone (which isn't to say they don't exist) who is attracted to one potential example of every single group out there. What if you find traits of every group but, let's say, hermaphrodites to be sexually attractive?

That would be, simply, having a preference but not being particularly "against the idea of" the greater line of things.

Again, it is not much more than political correctness.

Quote
This is a really good and interesting example. For those who do have inclinations towards certain sexes, it's just as applicable a concept as if you don't have any inclination towards any sex/gender. There is no conscious discrimination for the 'standard' three orientations, so the active preference of things like height or race or music taste or what-have-you comes into play anyway for the pool they are looking at. You're right -- being non-judgmental is not really enough grounds in my book to create a sexual orientation separate from the rest...at least not in that context.

Well few "Pansexuals" actually use it to imply a "sexual orientation" as a "sexual openness." Again, it is political correctness and not much more beyond this.

The example of my own "Mostly Straight" is not thought of as "proper" in any instances. It even implies a high degree of homosexuality BUT, when taken properly, I'm not actually attracted to men or the male figure. Though I've nothing against certain socially abnormal things such as a man playing a woman's role (dress/skirt, makeup etc), transgenders (which many "Straight men" do) and concepts of hermaphrodites (I say concepts of meaning Female body, don't mind male genitalia). For all intent and purposes, I'm attracted to the female figure which technically makes me firmly Heterosexual.... but by the fact I "don't mind a penis" confuses people and is why several others opt for something like "Pansexuality with X preference."

In a world where a person's sexual doings and attractions cause others to make poor judgments and general assumptions, pansexual is the "safe term" for people to use. Now I don't use the term because I see it literally, hate the concept of being politically correct and find it somewhat silly to a certain degree. BUT, that's just personally and people are free to do as they wish.

Quote
I'm starting to get a little clearer picture in some ways of what really defines pansexuality, but at the same time, you guys have raised a lot of interesting points which only have me confused more in others :(

I only look at things from a definitive value, meaning whatever personal biased anyone puts on anything (outside of my own :p) simply doesn't matter.

In the end, the word means what you ultimately want it to mean, regardless of what it might actually mean... and this is the reason such a word is used so broadly to imply so much.

I'd use it the same as "Christian" when that word, when used upon the individual, states something singular in the mind but actually covers a HUGE range of religious ideals and concepts.

Offline Florence

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2011, 05:48:52 AM »
I describe myself as pansexual or omnisexual, it's not a matter of 'pheh, you peons and your silly genital obsessions' or anything, it's just that I really don't consider gender. There are certain attributes I find more attractive than others, but I don't really care what a person has in their pants. If you do... great. I don't think you are lesser or ignorant or anything. It's simply a matter of taste. Some things that I may factor into the equation, you may not, it doesn't make me inferior either. Different people just have different values and tastes.

Offline NoelleTopic starter

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2011, 07:19:07 AM »
DudelRok, I will address your reply when I have a bit more time later on -- just kind of stopping in quick before my day starts.

Finn, thanks for stopping in...I was wondering if any pansexuals would come in and give their perspective.

If you truly don't include gender in your attraction, wouldn't it make more sense and be more accurate simply to call yourself gender-blind? I know a link to the two terms was given before, but I'm still not sure what the big dividing line between the two is.

Offline Jude

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #31 on: January 27, 2011, 01:23:11 PM »
I describe myself as pansexual or omnisexual, it's not a matter of 'pheh, you peons and your silly genital obsessions' or anything, it's just that I really don't consider gender. There are certain attributes I find more attractive than others, but I don't really care what a person has in their pants. If you do... great. I don't think you are lesser or ignorant or anything. It's simply a matter of taste. Some things that I may factor into the equation, you may not, it doesn't make me inferior either. Different people just have different values and tastes.
Could you describe some features on human beings you find attractive?  I'm really curious here.

Offline NoelleTopic starter

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2011, 05:08:55 PM »
That would be, simply, having a preference but not being particularly "against the idea of" the greater line of things.

It was pointed out earlier, though, in some cases the mere potential for attraction doesn't necessitate that you actually are. There are some proclaimed pansexuals who have never so much as seen a picture of, for example, a hermaphrodite or someone who is genderless, and even if they have, how would they know?

Actually, come to think of it, maybe some of what I just said answers my own question. I suppose it doesn't matter if they don't know, whereas someone who is one of the "conventional three" orientations may lose attraction if, say, they're a straight male, and that feminine-looking person actually turns out to be another male.

I guess the only issue I still see, in that case, is that it still seems just a bit ambiguous. If you've never encountered someone of an uncommon gender in your life, you don't really know for sure how you'd react either way. For all I know, I could find a genderqueer person out there that I am attracted to, but I don't think calling myself a pansexual is right simply because it's just too open and unknown. But now I'm just talking myself in circles :(

The rest of your post is fair enough...I think my own personal experience is largely coloring my view of this, because the context in which I've always used 'pansexual' used is in a context that mirrors the way people describe sexual orientation, so that's largely what I've learned to consider it. But if it's based on taste/preference/sexual openness, it becomes sillier yet for me: I have a preference for kink/BDSM, but I hardly feel the need to have a _____sexual term for it. I guess if it comes down to it, I can understand the need for the term in the present-day confusion of gender and sex. We often only talk about sex in terms of preference, whereas gender is a bit more specific. Technically, you could probably say that a lot of pansexuals fall under the bisexual label, considering there are only two biological sexes. But then (sorry, I keep contradicting myself, haha, I'm just trying to think out loud...), they are not unique in that either -- maybe I'm interested in other women, but only masculine women, since one covers their physical sex and the other their gender identity...or something. I think I just confused myself.

Offline alxnjsh

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2011, 08:41:36 PM »
As DarklingAlice said, you are either male or female - the other gradiations are vanishingly rare. My understanding is that the 'neither' / 'both' genders are so uncommon that I very much doubt that anyone who calls themselves pansexual will ever encounter one. Further, it is my understanding that everyone will identify externally as either male or female.

It is more common than you think: http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

I have a colleague and friend who considers hirself genderqueer and does NOT identify externally as male or female. Ze has had some modification, but not gender reassignment surgery. There are people like this in E if you look around.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Pansexual
« Reply #34 on: January 27, 2011, 09:14:08 PM »
Quote from: Noelle
First thing, I don't appreciate your thinly-veiled insults to the depths of my interest and intelligence. It's taken me two polite requests to actually get you on topic -- it's not a matter of me not wanting to discuss it because I've told you twice now that I want to engage you in conversation but you cannot seem to state your opinion in a clear and comprehensible manner.  I'm trying really hard to understand you because I want to understand you. If you're veering off into tangential topics and you cannot relate them back to the topic at hand (and again, I did ask you to do this in case I was missing the point, to which you replied with more equally vague and seemingly unrelated subjects), then that is, quite frankly, not my problem.
       Well, if you restrict the discussion in a way that refuses a wider perspective, that's that.  You've tried to demand that I not speak about any other sexual orientation as if there were no connection, overlap or association.  That simply is not the case.  If you say you are "concerned" about people suggesting there are practical advantages to a given orientation...  Or, if all you honestly see are people seriously intending that they are "superior" with no particular reason or obvious context...  In either case, I do not think there is much to discuss unless you look around the field of sexualities for some background.  Otherwise, you have already written up a few pansexuals, or perhaps pansexuals in general, as targets of your particular ire and declared there is nothing to understand but everyone is welcome to go on about only that.  If you choose to feel insulted by anyone saying so, I don't know how to help you. 

Quote
Not every thread is yours to discuss "the world in its complexity" as you see fit. I'm sorry if that seems unfair to you, but as I invited you to do so earlier, you are more than welcome to start your own thread to go off on any subject you so choose and I would love to participate on them there.
         I think your cutting it down "strictly" to only a very small, underrepresented set of people would only serve as an excuse to ignore or misrepresent the actual issues that group deals with generally.  Particularly when we know many members of the pansexual "community" (such as it is) are also actively and deeply involved in issues that span kink, poly, gay, bi, queer, etc.  I don't know of many Pansexual Institutions, any more than most people know of Genderqueer Ones.  But, you can learn a lot about the probems and values of either group by looking for some of those people (and for historically shared problems) among the others I've mentioned.   

Quote
10% of the population does not hold the monopoly on those who lean liberal politically.
       I think you've conjured up for yourself the idea that I thought they do.  However, among those who have non-normative family structures, gay, pan, and the like are relatively common.  And it is often alternative family structures -- gay marriage, polyamory, etc. -- that are at the center of some political and legal debates about what is moral sexuality, whose children are supposedly better cared for and so on, and thereby what is a "good life."  As more visible parties to cases in this debate -- "look, for them it's not just experimenting or sleeping around but oh no, it's an orientation, it's pan, bi, queer, etc." they are targeted as leading society down "the road to hell" by certain prominent right-wing commentators (Stanley Kurtz comes to mind).

       So given that, it's not so surprising a few pansexuals etc. may enjoy saying flippantly now and then:  Hey, we're actually better than that other tradition keep smacking us about being the only standard (along with whole Republican Party legislative platforms following them and a whole lot of airtime)...  Precisely what I happen to think of the more liberal or more conservative arguments there isn't apparently relevant to your question as phrased earlier.  All sorts of people have said things like this about their groups at times of controversy.

       I'm simply saying, if you aim to understand where it comes from:  I suspect some of that "we're superior" thing you're hearing may have something to do with larger claims about what's a good life.  They are not much about what sex of partner(s) the individual chooses.  As I said before, maybe it's more an offhand claim about some kind of lifestyle values.   Are they "right" that they're better in some way?   There's no way to really evaluate, unless we went through some list of all the social goals people have tied to relationships and agreed "as the judges ourselves" to make certain ones more important than others.  I'm not suggesting we bother, but it would go like this:  Is it economic power under one kind of order or another?  Relationship security?  Children who have more or less sources of advice and gender flexibility?  Well, the list is really long.  Agreement?  Measurability -- particularly while some orientations have more legal standing and less stigma than others??  Rather unlikely. 

       I imagine alternative lifestyles are a little stronger by some measures and a little weaker in others.  But I know there are some differences, often small and conditional ones but sometimes still real enough.  I also know there is a mix of confidence and resentment for discrimination among people who have been going on with their alternative relationships anyway.  So it's not surprising that you hear some people shoot off about how wonderful their relationships are.  It's no more surprising or offensive than for conservatives to shoot off about how wonderful "conservative family values" must be or sometimes, how "natural" limiting marriage to male-female should be. 

Quote
Yes, it is more likely that heterosexuals will be Republican because at present, not only are there a greater number of heterosexuals to draw in for those numbers
       I'm not sure if I said they would be Republican, or simply more prone to approve "family values" platforms.  Either way, this direction of argument strikes me as a little bizarre and forced.  If we can do this without writing regression equations please...  It's entirely feasible to see whether each orientation is proportionally represented by whatever measure.  I don't see why you would assume I meant only absolute numbers, unless you're scrambling to find a straw man.  It seems to me that kind of measurement would yes, obviously lead to absurd results in very many cases.  But then, why would I really want to go there.   

Quote
Consider that the Republican agenda repels gays with a few of its policies. As soon as that changes, it is likely that they become more gay-friendly on that issue alone and your point becomes rather baseless because you will see to some extent a shift of gays who are more willing to take on the right-wing agenda, maybe not their present "family values", but especially on matters such as fiscal policy.
        Aside from questioning how likely such a change is in the near future....  My point would still stand.  Some members of sexual minorities would continue to assert that their way is better than the platforms such as "family values" -- or any other party platform that really rubs against practicalities of their lifestyle.  It's similar to:  I can vote for Obama on the whole ticket, but still feel betrayed about rendition and torture.

Quote
But if what you are doing is suggesting that being gay/pansexual/bisexual gives you the moral high road, then just come out and say it.
       Myeh, moral relative to what?  There's that endless list to investigate and argue over which to favor in the first place.  I generally expect people not to agree on all that under present conditions.  So lots of people are going to insist they're ahead in the game -- while talking right past each other.  Just for example...  I think at least some members of sexual minorities do a relatively good job of encouraging their kids to be open to various genders and sexual orientations.   I think many kids that are in poly families have access to a particularly wide range of advice. (How many other people still live in extended families, and how many of those contain varied class backgrounds and different-but-equally celebrated sexual orientations?)  But I don't think no other families give these benefits and I know not all pan or poly people will... 

      Still, it makes sense to me that people who are commonly marginalized or neglected with direct reference to orientation as the code for it, will assert in turn that they really are acting moral, perhaps even superior.  That may be annoying to some people.  In principle, it is not offensive to me in the same way as getting behind a political program that asserts that minorities should be off the list of people who have protections and privileges.

       But who knows.  All of this may not be what your contacts have in mind.  They just may have been saying, "Gee you really should try this pie.  It's awful good.  It's not monkey brains, we swear."   :P 

« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 09:29:21 PM by kylie »

Offline NoelleTopic starter

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2011, 10:17:03 PM »
       Well, if you restrict the discussion in a way that refuses a wider perspective, that's that.  You've tried to demand that I not speak about any other sexual orientation as if there were no connection, overlap or association.

I've asked many, many times that you clarify your points where I didn't understand how they were relevant. That's not censorship, Kylie, that's called taking an interest in what you have to say, and that offer is still open. If I've somehow made you feel slighted, it wasn't my intent to do so, but I honestly don't know how much clearer I can make this for you. I've done my part to reach out to you and if you can't or don't want to meet me halfway or if you're going to continue to interject passive-aggressive comments, then this isn't a discussion that's worth my time to continue with you because it's not a discussion at all as much as it is borderline trollish. I hope this is the last we have to speak of this.
 
Quote
I think you've conjured up for yourself the idea that I thought they do.  However, among those who have non-normative family structures, gay, pan, and the like are relatively common.  And it is often alternative family structures -- gay marriage, polyamory, etc. -- that are at the center of some political and legal debates about what is moral sexuality, whose children are supposedly better cared for and so on, and thereby what is a "good life."  As more visible parties to cases in this debate -- "look, for them it's not just experimenting or sleeping around but oh no, it's an orientation, it's pan, bi, queer, etc." they are targeted as leading society down "the road to hell" by certain prominent right-wing commentators (Stanley Kurtz comes to mind).

Then I misunderstood you, my apologies. Thank you for clarifying. As I said in my response, if you eliminate the anti-gay agenda (a la your "road to hell" comment), it loses its strength as a theory because there is far more to the right-wing agenda than trying to destroy gays. I believe already conceded that gays and the like are probably always going to lean a little more liberal socially anyway, and if I haven't, there it is.

Quote
So given that, it's not so surprising a few pansexuals etc. may enjoy saying flippantly now and then:  Hey, we're actually better than that other tradition keep smacking us about being the only standard (along with whole Republican Party legislative platforms following them and a whole lot of airtime)...  Precisely what I happen to think of the more liberal or more conservative arguments there isn't apparently relevant to your question as phrased earlier.  All sorts of people have said things like this about their groups at times of controversy.

Trying to rise above the label you've been given is much different than considering yourself superior because of your preference in attraction for other people, which I've already mentioned has no real bearing outside of who you will and won't have sex/a relationship with. I am all for trying to break stereotypes and replacing them with a more positive view of yourself, and that is part of the point of this thread -- I want to understand pansexuality in a context that is not a negative stereotype that I've come to experience personally. However I am not for using a detail about yourself such as sexual preference to take the high ground, despite how oppressed you are/think you are for anybody.

Quote
Are they "right" that they're better in some way?   There's no way to really evaluate, unless we went through some list of all the social goals people have tied to relationships and agreed "as the judges ourselves" to make certain ones more important than others.  I'm not suggesting we bother, but it would go like this:  Is it economic power under one kind of order or another?  Relationship security?  Children who have more or less sources of advice and gender flexibility?  Well, the list is really long.  Agreement?  Measurability -- particularly while some orientations have more legal standing and less stigma than others??  Rather unlikely. 

There is an easy way to evaluate: Does having a particular preference in partners make you a better or worse person? Does wanting to fuck women make you an inferior person to someone who will fuck both men and women? Are all of those inferior to people who are willing to fuck people of most/any genders? If their standard of 'better' is equitable to 'a larger pool of people I can fuck/form a relationship with', then I guess so, but that's really about the only arena. Sexual orientation otherwise does not give you an inherently better or worse quality as a human being, and if it does, it has yet to be proven to me here. Your choices, actions, and beliefs are what define you as a person and are what make you a better or worse human being.

Quote
       I imagine alternative lifestyles are a little stronger by some measures and a little weaker in others.  But I know there are some differences, often small and conditional ones but sometimes still real enough.  I also know there is a mix of confidence and resentment for discrimination among people who have been going on with their alternative relationships anyway.  So it's not surprising that you hear some people shoot off about how wonderful their relationships are.  It's no more surprising or offensive than for conservatives to shoot off about how wonderful "conservative family values" must be or sometimes, how "natural" limiting marriage to male-female should be. 

I can agree with this, but the question isn't about whether or not this is an issue that is unique to pansexuality. I understand that there's a degree of self-superiority going on in all walks of life, but in the case of something that is touted as not being a choice (unlike choosing to put stock in "family values" or choosing to agree with conservatives about what marriage "is"), it's as ridiculous as telling people that being a natural brunette is a superior value. All kinds of self-superiority are ridiculous, but my encounters with it in a subject I'm unfamiliar with (pansexuality) just happens to be the topic at hand.


Quote
Aside from questioning how likely such a change is in the near future....  My point would still stand.  Some members of sexual minorities would continue to assert that their way is better than the platforms such as "family values" -- or any other party platform that really rubs against practicalities of their lifestyle.  It's similar to:  I can vote for Obama on the whole ticket, but still feel betrayed about rendition and torture.

Yes, but there are minorities in every group that assert their way is better. Sexual minorities can also include those who engage in bestiality or pedophilia and I highly doubt our society is going to be taking up their cause anytime soon. Besides, your last sentence there kind of reiterates what I'm saying: you don't have to be on board with everything a party says to vote for it. If we're still following my hypothetical account of Republicans/conservatives taking up a more gay-friendly platform (and it's not as absurd as you make it sound; it's already been suggested by some as a way to help boost support, and if the issue really is as close to the civil rights movement as many gay activists make it sound, just ask yourself: how many people are still running for office on the platform of keeping the negroes separate?), then it largely opens up the door for gays to take a second look at their other issues without the filter of "these people are denying me equality". There is already a population of gays who vote Republican for whatever reason, even in spite of the right-wing desire to otherwise discriminate. They may not flock to the right in droves, but obviously in other countries where gays are more accepted, I imagine the numbers are far less concentrated on one side.

Quote
Myeh, moral relative to what?  There's that endless list to investigate and argue over which to favor in the first place.  I generally expect people not to agree on all that under present conditions.  So lots of people are going to insist they're ahead in the game -- while talking right past each other.  Just for example...  I think at least some members of sexual minorities do a relatively good job of encouraging their kids to be open to various genders and sexual orientations.   I think many kids that are in poly families have access to a particularly wide range of advice. (How many other people still live in extended families, and how many of those contain varied class backgrounds and different-but-equally celebrated sexual orientations?)  But I don't think no other families give these benefits and I know not all pan or poly people will... 

      Still, it makes sense to me that people who are commonly marginalized or neglected with direct reference to orientation as the code for it, will assert in turn that they really are acting moral, perhaps even superior.  That may be annoying to some people.  In principle, it is not offensive to me in the same way as getting behind a political program that asserts that minorities should be off the list of people who have protections and privileges.

Let me rephrase the question: As a simple yes or no question, do you think gays/bisexuals/pansexuals (or any combination/exclusion thereof) are superior? Are they better than others, and if so, in what way? I'm not asking for an exploration of the flexibility and general relativity of moral values, I want to know what you think.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 10:23:26 PM by Noelle »

Offline DudelRok

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2011, 11:08:17 PM »
It was pointed out earlier, though, in some cases the mere potential for attraction doesn't necessitate that you actually are. There are some proclaimed pansexuals who have never so much as seen a picture of, for example, a hermaphrodite or someone who is genderless, and even if they have, how would they know?

On E we can safely assume thy do know to a large degree. Until I was on E I never questioned my own "stance" of Heterosexuality (still technically don't) and have pondered about the term "Pansexual" in what it means and implies upon myself.

Quote
Actually, come to think of it, maybe some of what I just said answers my own question. I suppose it doesn't matter if they don't know, whereas someone who is one of the "conventional three" orientations may lose attraction if, say, they're a straight male, and that feminine-looking person actually turns out to be another male.

That's also not necessarily true. Many lose of attraction after the genitals are reviled tends less to be about a person's sexual orientation and more about what the current situations implies about their sexual orientation TO OTHERS. The very first thought that pops into a straight male's brain when he happens upon a penis on a woman is "Does this make me gay?"

As I stated, by the terms of Heterosexuality and what it actually means, I am very firmly straight. I am attracted to the female form, to what females generally look like and to any concept I have deemed as female. I add on the "Mostly" only on E and only to show I'm "open" in instances others might not be.

Attraction to male/female is still rather plain and blunt (something you could agree with). Many who are even bisexual still only like girly type of guys or butchy type of women, making their attraction still rather "Male" or "female" which has been one of kylie's main attempts at a point from the get go (Well at least post one was, I didn't read the rest.) and something you, yourself, address in a later paragraph.

Quote
I guess the only issue I still see, in that case, is that it still seems just a bit ambiguous. If you've never encountered someone of an uncommon gender in your life, you don't really know for sure how you'd react either way. For all I know, I could find a genderqueer person out there that I am attracted to, but I don't think calling myself a pansexual is right simply because it's just too open and unknown. But now I'm just talking myself in circles :(

I can't help but saying "Politically Correct" again and again. Really, that's all it is... a way to play the "I don't judge" and "Don't judge me" cards.

Between this and your next paragraph, you technically fit into the current concepts of what "Pansexuality" is and don't use it, so it seems, for similar reasons to myself.

Quote
The rest of your post is fair enough...I think my own personal experience is largely coloring my view of this, because the context in which I've always used 'pansexual' used is in a context that mirrors the way people describe sexual orientation, so that's largely what I've learned to consider it. But if it's based on taste/preference/sexual openness, it becomes sillier yet for me: I have a preference for kink/BDSM, but I hardly feel the need to have a _____sexual term for it. I guess if it comes down to it, I can understand the need for the term in the present-day confusion of gender and sex.

By this description of yourself you technically "fit" in the concept of what a "Pansexual Community" is due to having an "abnormal" or "perverse" sexual orientation that they would accept no matter what happened, provided you do the same (which you seem to do and was one of kylie's points).

Quote
We often only talk about sex in terms of preference, whereas gender is a bit more specific. Technically, you could probably say that a lot of pansexuals fall under the bisexual label, considering there are only two biological sexes. But then (sorry, I keep contradicting myself, haha, I'm just trying to think out loud...), they are not unique in that either -- maybe I'm interested in other women, but only masculine women, since one covers their physical sex and the other their gender identity...or something. I think I just confused myself.

Well this means you'd still be Heterosexual. You are still attracted to the male form and concepts of it. In that instance you are not actually attracted to women but only those who appear to be manly (or even flatly look like men).

No one is actually attracted to the genitalia and, no matter the sexuality, everyone tends to have a strict male/female preference depending on their own concept of of those terms and what they apply to themselves (something else kylie tried to say). "Pansexuals" apply for this random broadness of possibly being attracted to just about anyone and simply taking in the concept. I can't say "Politically Correct" any harder. XD

I mean, that's all it is. A nice, friendly, and generally judgment free way to say, "I'm open to any and all possibilities as I simply don't know." That's perfectly fine, but is not technically what the word means or even implies... so you kind of just have to let people have it no matter how silly we think it is and let it go as another one of life's strange little quirks.

It is more common than you think: http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

I have a colleague and friend who considers hirself genderqueer and does NOT identify externally as male or female. Ze has had some modification, but not gender reassignment surgery. There are people like this in E if you look around.

Not to sound rude but what someone actually identifies as doesn't affect my, or anyone's, attraction to them. There are many sexually gender questionable individuals who are (in my mind) firmly female despite not being 100% true (or even being 100% not true) in that aspect and, as a result, I can become attracted to them. While those I see as male, not so much... it is the same with a large majority of people.

So as much as they are not male or female, but because they look as one or the other, they attract certain people because of this... while would attract certain others if they looked the opposite. This is where common confusion for most people's concepts of what "Pansexuality" comes from, and is one of the confusions Noelle obviously has. "What are Pansexual people actually attracted to?" The answer to which is, "The same stuff as you, probably."

Again, there are male and female features, if "Pansexuals" are attracted to any combination, it brings up confusing questions which can't be naturally answered due to the current dichotomy on physical sex, and are not answered by actual Pansexuals because they don't use the word as it actually means and implies. This is the "problem," really. Those who use the term upon themselves don't actually mean it as a sexual orientation... it is almost like refusing to pick a sexual orientation. Doing so based on things like "I couldn't possibly know" and "There are options I've never even thought about," is a valid stance I can support in other people.

I'd place it to my own view of religion (Ignosticism Apatheism) and more as a political stance to state physical/actual gender simply doesn't matter and, furthermore, isn't that important (another one of kylie's points). In this instance, I can support it as well as I care little about someone's actual gender, as well... however, I am physically attracted to the female form. (Wonder if I could argue being both Heterosexual as well as being "Pansexual" by using both definitions and the concepts of what gender still currently is? I could, certainly, argue that almost everyone on E is Pansexual... provided they don't mind cross gender (men playing women, and vise verse) play and or a strict "X/Y partners only please" clause in their game adverts.)

Most people use it, again, as a general catch all and it is used as politically correct stance on the entire situation. This instance of the word I can't support, and is the one I find equally as silly as Noelle stated.

(Side: Shi is another one of those politically correct terms I don't like, so I pick gender neutral nouns that actually exist in the English language: they, their, one and we.)
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 11:09:30 PM by DudelRok »

Offline Moonhare

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #37 on: January 28, 2011, 06:51:29 PM »
I'm pansexual.

That being said, what it means to me is that I am physically attracted to people. Yes, that includes men, women, transgender, and hermaphrodites. I enjoy porn of all of the above. The human body is one huge turn on in all it's forms, and I enjoy not only looking at, but interacting with others not always of standard male/female definition. Just to make myself clear, I'm attracted to mature people.

I believe that the best definition isn't that I am attracted to a specific attribute about a person's sex, more that I am attracted to different aspects of all gender's sex. I'm not deluded in thinking being pansexual is better than any other sexuality, but I do understand where the misunderstanding can come in. Since I am attracted to a wide definition of sexuality in others, it is hard to communicate that I am attracted to specific aspects of all people and not be called bi-sexual.

Offline Falcot

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #38 on: January 28, 2011, 10:10:07 PM »
Interestingly enough I haven’t heard of this term until now but i will still give my impression thanks to some of your posts, wikipedia and IMHO.

pansexuality is the sexual attraction to someone regardless of their biological sexual traits (male, female, etc) and regardless of their gender identity (male, female) which can mean several things to me

A. You feel a sexual attraction and enjoy partaking or witnessing sexual acts with males, females
B. You feel a sexual attraction and enjoy people in general regardless of whether they are straight, homosexual and bisexual
C. You act/feel attracted to certain people and things the same way a straight or homosexual person would
D. You are attracted to these characteristics (ie someone’s voice and looks) regardless of gender or orientation

I don't really see the controversy in this type of sexuality since it isn't necessarily a human conflict. The only issue i see (and its the same thing with homosexuality and heterosexuality) is when one is perceived better then the other

In fact (If my interpretation of this is correct) pansexuality is a part of everyone’s sexual identity  because there are certain things we adore about everyone, I am a fan of girls with short hair and if I were to be interested in a male, I would probably prefer men with short hair.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2011, 10:44:17 AM »
I am a fan of girls with short hair and if I were to be interested in a male, I would probably prefer men with short hair.

In my experience, many (although certainly not all) bisexual individuals have quite divergent preferences with their male and female partners.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Pansexual
« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2011, 10:58:12 PM »
        Noelle, I have to take issue with your tossing around pop psychology to criticize a post where you also admit that you simply find the substantial discussion hard to follow.  You can always ask a question, do some research, take a little time, or simply ignore me.  It's not as if I will post on an hourly basis demanding that you respond or even trying to convince you.  However, I also refuse to adopt rigid writing style guidelines for you.  I don't believe it has been written anywhere that having the little blue star means you can bully people into only writing the way you prefer while making a political argument.

       The stuff is complex and I think it's more important to show connections and process than to boil it down to tiny soundbytes.  I tend to think that to grossly over-simplify at the particular junctures you demand would serve a "trollish" style of conversation far more than anything I have written.  I won't bother to file a claim about it, but I think it is unfair to bandy the word about that way.  Also on that note:  People often toss around "passive-aggressive" or "OCD" or all sorts of psych terms as if they have a shared understanding of what those mean, and as if one could personally judge off a text forum.  Please take it up with admin if you think I'm just generally nasty in some observable way.  I don't see that you have much to stand on there, except for expressed personal annoyance at a slightly busy writing style. 

       Now apart from that, fair enough with most of your post.  Just a couple things for the moment:

Quote from: Noelle
I want to understand pansexuality in a context that is not a negative stereotype that I've come to experience personally. However I am not for using a detail about yourself such as sexual preference to take the high ground, despite how oppressed you are/think you are for anybody.
       Fine.  In the opening you said you "are concerned" specifically with situations where you perceived pan-identified people saying they are superior.  I've simply said, here is one way to understand where that comes from.  I don't think orientation in and of itself clearly makes anyone a better person, as you put it.  However, I have to point out that straight people are generally not being pressured by powerful social groups to explain or defend themselves for being straight.  Pansexuals and other minorities are being pressed to explain themselves because of their orientation, and/or to give up claims to equality.  It's not surprising then that they sometimes emphasize, well from where I stand, this actually looks better. 

         It could be more diplomatically phrased say:  There are lots of ways this lets me lead my particular life in a moral way, which seems better to me than what you are trying to take away and what wider lifestyle (rights, family, etc.) conservatives would force me to have or not have through all those discriminatory institutions.  Perhaps some people are jumping the gun a little bit on claims that the whole society might just be better if we were all.... insert minority orientation here.  We can't have a full debate about that, because minority groups don't have enough institutional support to even live their lives fully above the radar:  How can we really know what's going better or worse for who?  Still, it's unfair and unrealistic -- if not simply goading -- when dominant groups constantly pressure and restrict minorities on one hand, and demand that their rhetoric be "more civil" than others' at the same time.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2011, 11:05:17 PM by kylie »

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Pansexual
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2011, 11:26:56 PM »
Quote from: Noelle
If we're still following my hypothetical account of Republicans/conservatives taking up a more gay-friendly platform (and it's not as absurd as you make it sound; it's already been suggested by some as a way to help boost support, and if the issue really is as close to the civil rights movement as many gay activists make it sound, just ask yourself: how many people are still running for office on the platform of keeping the negroes separate?)

       I don't believe civil rights (conceptualized narrowly as race and gender) have advanced so far as you seem to characterize them.  Instead of women as mere chattel and Blacks as slaves, we have:  Glass ceilings, unequal wages for the same jobs, massive disparities in wealth that appear set to increase again with economic downturns, regular conservative pushes to dismantle social programs that serve Blacks especially and women to a significant extent.  Multiply those together for minority women of various racial categories.  Blacks have a more difficult time getting jobs in many sectors even when we account for relative education, income, and criminal records.  Blacks are restricted in housing through a collusion of real estate agents and government and bank rules about zoning and loans ("redlining").  We also have seen Southern state and county leaders (largely conservatives) flying Confederate battle flags on state buildings, or arguing that mass transit should not expand to keep "a certain kind of people" from moving out of city centers toward more developed suburbs with better services and more housing choices.  The list goes on and on. 

      Then we have the gay rights version, where only the good, white-collar, largely Whitened and middle class gays (ideally with adopted children) are broadly accepted.  Trans, queer, and pan are barely visible and often treated as a liability.  Rather similar to how more established, Black middle class leaders have often been pressed by Washington to sell out their own lower-class constituents in order to gain any concessions (Kathy Cohen documents this at some length in The Boundaries of Blackness - 1999, U-Chicago Press).

      In short, formal federal recognition and victories on the most basic questions of official status are only the beginning of the struggle.  We can still identify a conservative "movement" backlash against the minorities that benefitted most from the classic civil rights cases, and a certain often liberal-identified bloc that tends to support them in that ongoing struggle. 


Offline mystictiger

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2011, 10:59:56 AM »
Quote
Still, it's unfair and unrealistic -- if not simply goading -- when dominant groups constantly pressure and restrict minorities on one hand, and demand that their rhetoric be "more civil" than others' at the same time.

Er. That's what we call law. The majority will always have the right, the ability, and the desire to legislate for the minority. The best that the minority can hope for is that it's only minimally restrictive.

Offline NoelleTopic starter

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2011, 12:45:59 PM »
Gah, I had a response typed out for everyone earlier and accidentally hit the dreaded back button. Let's try again.

On E we can safely assume thy do know to a large degree. Until I was on E I never questioned my own "stance" of Heterosexuality (still technically don't) and have pondered about the term "Pansexual" in what it means and implies upon myself.

I have a similar background; not quite the same, but similar. I had heard the term once or twice before E, got a little more idea of it after I joined, and then suddenly started hearing it from people I know. I try to take the attitude in general that if someone says they're X or Y, it's safe to assume they know what they are better than I would, and arguing with people over their experiences is largely pretty arrogant. I think that's one of the reasons I made this thread, is because despite my better senses, I still wanted to argue with them about it because I still get the sense that maybe they're abusing the title, so I thought I should probably get a better understanding of it, myself.

Quote
That's also not necessarily true. Many lose of attraction after the genitals are reviled tends less to be about a person's sexual orientation and more about what the current situations implies about their sexual orientation TO OTHERS. The very first thought that pops into a straight male's brain when he happens upon a penis on a woman is "Does this make me gay?"

I agree that social stigma has a lot to do with the way people (especially men it seems) react at times, but I have to contend that I don't think it comprises "most". If you're not attracted to other penises, you're not attracted to other penises, and there's a good chance you're going to be even less attracted to a penis when it surprises you. In the case of women with penises, do you really think men who ask 'does this make me gay' are worried because they've sprouted an erection over the penis portion of the picture, or is it the reset of the obviously female component that has them aroused? All they'd have to do is close one eye and put a hand over the 'gay' part and it's perfect masturbatory material.

Because of this, being attracted to others is far beyond just outward appearance; if it wasn't, we wouldn't have the woefully stereotyped 'tranny trap'. I've got my own bisexual tendencies, but if I'm attracted to someone with a definitively male appearance and was anticipating and turned on by the idea of having sex with him later and it turns out he's got a vagina, I'm probably going to pull my clothes back on and leave in a hurry. There are some who won't care at all, will say 'fuck it', and get right to it, but I think that there is a very large degree of importance on normality in the sense of gender and sex being related for most people and the expectation that comes with that, and not all surprises turn out to be good ones.

Quote
I mean, that's all it is. A nice, friendly, and generally judgment free way to say, "I'm open to any and all possibilities as I simply don't know." That's perfectly fine, but is not technically what the word means or even implies... so you kind of just have to let people have it no matter how silly we think it is and let it go as another one of life's strange little quirks.

I think we agree with each other, on the whole, with some minor hypotheticals here and there, sooo yeah. I really can't say much of contention here, because ultimately, you're probably right. Colloquial usage is going to vastly different from the 'technical', especially with such a tenuous word, so it's kind of silly either way.

I'm pansexual.

That being said, what it means to me is that I am physically attracted to people. Yes, that includes men, women, transgender, and hermaphrodites. I enjoy porn of all of the above. The human body is one huge turn on in all it's forms, and I enjoy not only looking at, but interacting with others not always of standard male/female definition. Just to make myself clear, I'm attracted to mature people.

I believe that the best definition isn't that I am attracted to a specific attribute about a person's sex, more that I am attracted to different aspects of all gender's sex. I'm not deluded in thinking being pansexual is better than any other sexuality, but I do understand where the misunderstanding can come in. Since I am attracted to a wide definition of sexuality in others, it is hard to communicate that I am attracted to specific aspects of all people and not be called bi-sexual.

Thanks for popping in and posting; was wondering if anyone who strongly identified with the word would be able to give their own take. I think I understand what you're saying. You say different aspects of all people -- can you elaborate a little bit on that? I do follow your post, I'm just trying to get a better picture of how attraction is the same/different from a 'standard' orientation.

Offline Jude

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2011, 05:50:56 PM »
Kylie, the reason why your posting is off-topic and offensive is because you are not discussing the issue at hand, you're detracting from it in an offensive way.  The purpose of the discussion was to ask what being a pansexual is and to question whether or not many pansexuals believe it is moral to be sexually open.  Your discussion of conservative politics is completely and utterly unrelated to the topic, but you brought them up in an attempt to justify the perceived self-righteousness that has been ascribed to some pansexuals on this thread.  You're posting here as an apologist for pansexuals, not as a person wishing to discuss the topic, but merely a person who seems interested in bashing conservatives (as you do on every other post).

If all of your posts end up at the same place (conservatives are bad, social norms are evil, minorities are oppressed), why bother to post?  It's getting to the point that I can sum up everything you write with that simple maxim without reading anything you write as you attribute everything to that.

Offline Moonhare

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #45 on: January 30, 2011, 07:04:46 PM »
Thanks for popping in and posting; was wondering if anyone who strongly identified with the word would be able to give their own take. I think I understand what you're saying. You say different aspects of all people -- can you elaborate a little bit on that? I do follow your post, I'm just trying to get a better picture of how attraction is the same/different from a 'standard' orientation.

Thank you for receiving me well. It's not something that I am open about outside of those that know me well enough to ask. Since E is like a second family, I'm open to questions about this.

What attracts me to a person sexual starts with:
The first thing that I am attracted to is the eyes. Not everyone's eyes, nor any rhyme or reason to a specific eye color or shape, but if that person has it, then I am attracted. Doesn't matter if they are male, female, or other, I will likely be day dreaming about those eyes. It's not an attraction to a sexual body part, but it is a sexual response from me. It was one of the first things that attracted me to my SO.

Second is the voice. Again, there are different tones, monotones, timbers, etc. that bring the reaction. Listening to the right voice will have me very excited. It's one reason I listen to music from other countries as well as English. The roll of words from the tongue, the vibrations, the depth, or range are all varying, but an attraction. I have gotten excited from listening to someone with a deep male voice speaking in Japanese. Just from the voice. I can't tell you what the man was saying. He could have been reading a fiscal report.

Third is more sexual. I am attracted to scents. Female, male doesn't matter. If I smell someone, there will be an instant attraction or dislike sexually. I don't mind the scent of sweat, I prefer it. It's much harder to explain this one than other attractions, because I have to be close to them in the first place, but I can say that I know that a shrimp and garlic like smell from anyone is an instant turn off.

Fourth is movement. The way a body moves. Can't explain this one thoroughly, but Bruce Willis has it, and Rachel Brice. There are many others, and I would tire my fingers to explain, but the way they move when they walk, how their body flows. It is what attracts me to belly dancers, and other dancers, of all genders. I don't know if it is from the way the muscles move themselves or something more, but I know that I really enjoy it.

If I had to break down each sex by genitals, I prefer voluptuous women, even to the side of being overweight or obese with smooth skin and full breasts. Men, I prefer taller lanky men or smaller built men with good muscle tone. That doesn't mean I won't take a thin woman to my bed, nor a fat man, because if the first four fit, then they are welcome, but these are the things I look at and find erotic. With intersexed or transgendered, it varies as much as the person. I do find a level of androgyny very sexy. Those things are all superficial, but that is what I am attracted to and if single, would actively seek. Being married, I don't bring home my attractions without some...arrangements first, and because I am in a committed relationship, I don't have any intention of making these people that do grace my bed, into anything more than friends with benefits, but I do have some very good friends with benefits.

Hope that explains how hard it is to say what exactly attracts me one way or another, because I'm not attracted to everyone. It's not ALL people that I am attracted to, but when I see, hear, or smell someone, I know if I'm attracted or not. None of the superficial works in a long term relationship, but those are questions for what makes a relationship, not about what gets my attention in the first place, or makes me interested in pursuing sex with another human being.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Pansexual
« Reply #46 on: February 01, 2011, 11:36:06 PM »
Kylie, the reason why your posting is off-topic and offensive is because you are not discussing the issue at hand, you're detracting from it in an offensive way.  The purpose of the discussion was to ask what being a pansexual is and to question whether or not many pansexuals believe it is moral to be sexually open.

        You might review the text of the OP:

Quote from: Noelle
What I'm concerned with, however is the kind of arbitrary, 'abridged' definition I've heard from more than a handful of individuals -- and that is the claim that they are pansexual because "they are attracted to the person and not just their genitals." This is almost always said with an air of pride, or a kind of self-congratulations, which is why I find this definition to be far more disturbing and something I can't really support.
       I was responding to what the OP claimed was its central issue.   

Quote from: Jude
If all of your posts end up at the same place (conservatives are bad, social norms are evil, minorities are oppressed), why bother to post?  It's getting to the point that I can sum up everything you write with that simple maxim without reading anything you write as you attribute everything to that.

        I could sum up many of your posts in various threads as:  Just hang on, progress will come for each group in its time and any effort to secure more through principle rather than the ballot box will lead to unacceptable social unrest.  Fine.  I think you're missing a good chunk of history that way.  For instance, the parts typically called "backlash" (in the sense of other vocal minorities claiming to speak for a "Majority" situation -- when in fact, their claims in many instances did not represent the practical reality of how most people lived in the first place) or "issue evolution."  Still, I won't tell you to stop engaging the issues and elaborating on the details as you will.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2011, 11:45:55 PM by kylie »

Offline GothicFires

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2011, 12:25:44 AM »
But you just said that men, in general, can spark a sexual fantasy while women don't. That's pretty straightforward heterosexuality, if you're a woman. Imagining that one day your preferences might change doesn't mean that you have that sexual direction right now.

I have had sex with both men and women. While women do not spark 'a sexual fantasy' it does not mean they are off my menu as there are many avenues of attraction aside from the anatomy that I choose not to restrict myself from ever. That 'preference' isn't going to change.

Offline squidsyd7

Re: Pansexual
« Reply #48 on: March 29, 2011, 01:40:22 AM »
I've heard a lot of buzz about people describing themselves as "pansexual" lately, and I honestly don't get it.

First, I don't want it to come off like I don't support LGBT rights - I do.  Quite fervently, actually.  I've actually been accused of being a lesbian or bisexual for the sole reason that I'm so passionate about it.

I understand gay and bisexual, but something like pansexual doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter how you think about yourself or how you feel, there are two genders.  Male and female.  If you feel like a guy but you're a girl, it doesn't change the fact that you have a vagina.  Again, gender can be a very complicated issue, and I understand that, but medically and anatomically, you are either a man or a woman (or both, but that's rare).

Therefore, I don't see much of a difference between bisexual and pansexual.  Bisexual is attracted to both genders (male and female), and pansexual (from what I've gathered) is looking past gender and just loving a person for who they are.  In my book, that's the same thing.  Regardless of a person's personality or looks, they are always going to be either a man or a woman, so isn't that the same thing?

I do agree with the OP in that pansexuals do seem to have this superiority complex, like straight/gay/bisexual people are only attracted to people because of their genitals, and can't pay as much attention to personality alone as they do.  It seems to me that they feel that if you love only people of one gender, or if you love both genders, then your main reason for being attracted to them is the fact that they have a penis or vagina, which I can say isn't true.  There is that sexual attraction, yes, but I can say personally that I wouldn't date someone just because they have a penis.  My standards are a bit higher than that.

Overall, yes, I agree that pansexuals seem to have a superiority complex, and I just don't understand the difference between pansexual and bisexual in the sense that they're both attracted to both genders (ergo, everyone).

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Pansexual
« Reply #49 on: March 29, 2011, 01:57:15 AM »
The physical sex of a person is 99% of the time male or female.  Possibly a touch less than that, when you figure in the variants caused by chromosomal deletions and recombinations.  Gender, on the other hand, has long been recognized as more than just a duality.  Both the Kinsey scale and the Klein grid offer a wide range of gender identities.  You'll find many people on E that don't identify as either male or female, some of whom have probably posted in this thread (they have badges marked 'Liege' or 'Champion'.)  The pansexual recognizes this and at the same time embraces all those variants as possible in someone that they are attracted to.