Pansexuality

Some people can't stay focused. And try to defend it with other labels.

Pansexuality.

It's a short step towards pantheistic belief. Which would be better inherit than specifics like Baptism...Islam and the like.

lol, that episode was on a couple of nights ago.


Anywho. . .isn't pansexuality basically bisexuality? I mean, they have sex with both, so. . .

It's beyond bisexuality: basically a refusal to categorize one's erotic impulse or drive by any conventional label.

All this classification of one's sexuality -homo, hetero, bi- was popularized by Germans and German-speaking people in the 19th century. What a surprise

FWIW, I'm a flaming pagan, too. Although I don't sacrifice sheep, my spirituality comes much closer to Pantheism than anything widely practiced today.

It's all Greek to me.

Seriously, it's an interesting concept.

Perhaps theres a little bit of this in me somewhere... Its a very interesting concept.
I can find both men and women extremely asthetically pleasing. The difference is that when I see a really good looking man, although I feel drawn to him, I dont feel the urge to have sex with him at all, like I would with an incredibly hot woman... But I can appreciate how good looking he is.

Weird...

THANKS for doing this thread.. I've been talking abut the pansexual concept since I've joined lpsg.org and never got the smarts do do one!
I consider myself more or less a pansexual.

IT'S not the sex, but the attraction. YOU can feel attracted to men, women, trisexuals or even beef, regardeless of a sexual orientation.

JUST something stucks in my mind, and maybe that's why I didn't start a thread: IF pansexuals try not to have a lable, doesn't the fact we consider ourselfs pansexuals, gives us a LABLE? ;)

Please don't misinterpret what I am saying here, but the definition for pansexual given includes "ALL" sexual acts concerning humans. That seems to be the only qualifier is that both living organisms be human.

Does it include age related sexual preferences specifically targeted to infancy to people who are. Does this mean that a pansexual may be sexually attracted to a three year old "if the vibes are just right." or any other age that minors fall in?

If it literally means that a person can be sexually attracted to anyone and everyone if the "vibes are just right." I have a major problem. There are some standards that I believe are more important that a person's sexual attractions. Relationships between a human and another human are always wrong if they are not on an equal footing. If one of the partners is not willing or as defined by law not legally able to make that decision, then it is wrong, not some of the time, but always wrong.

Now if two adults of legal age, both of sound mind and both free to leave the relationship at will and have the "vibes just right, I don't worry about labels. We have too many labels now.

I really can't see why the term bi can't cover all the legal attractions.
According to biologists we all have a gender when studying our DNA. There have been women born naturally as women who have been bared from the Olympics because there levels of testosterone and other tests showed "male" even though they naturally have boobs and a vagina. The doctors say that these persons should have been born men. I am not getting into that issue except to say, there are criteria to determine if a person is male or female.

I know that there are people who are guys who believe they are women with penises. Legally they can be classified as either if that is the wish of the nation making the laws. I see the problem of a physically a man using the women's restroom because inside he is a woman. I can see how other women could be freaked out about that if they don't know the circumstances.

But the guy is still a gender. We can classify this person as a male or as a female. But I hardly would think this person wants to be known as a third gender. If the person has the surgery then there is no question that this person is totally female, not something else.

I know good intentions were meant by having this new defined termed. But I see some real legal and cultural problems if a new neighbor moved into the neighborhood and is a pansexual. The neighbors go and check out this word and it basically says attraction to any other humans and there you go, a petition is up and going to rid the neighborhood of this person el pronto.

In closing, I doubt the writers who coined this term were meaning to include pedophilia but according to this broad definition, they just did.

Had they included the word adult in the definition, I could have bought it.

This is very much on par with the way I feel. I think loads of guys are hot and have no problem admitting it or feeling it. It's just never to the point where I'd want to touch them - it hasn't ever been that strong. With women, I feel lots of lust, attraction, and I have this whole primal thing going on, something that I've never had with men. That's how I know I'm fully straight. I'm secure in that but will always feel a certain admiration and appreciation for my own kind.

Wow! on the first part of the article. I guess since I love MTF transsexuals that I might be Pansexual. Interesting. That's the first defintion I've seen on that term.

I think that I understand Pansexuality. It is about wishing to bond a connection with someone with sexual contact/intimacy irrespective of their gender and/or orientation. I would most likely be there but for my str8jacket

I read the same link you posted several months back. I was interested in learning more about human sexuality in all forms (not that I would practice or am interested in trying). I feel it's always good to be informed as to what other lifestyles are out there and learning from people and their behaviors.

I am sure you have given several people here an opportunity to read on a subject or form of sexuality they did not know existed.

Thanks for providing the link

I see some of what you all are talking about, but I don't see any limits put on pansexuality. That sounds fine as long as we are talking about truly consenting adults.

That is not so fine when it comes to pedophilia or true master/slave relationships where the slave is not a fully consenting partner. If role play master/slave relationships gets someone off that tine with me as long as the slave is truly able to give consent,

It can't include rape in any form shape or fashion.

I would feel more comfortable with a definition that says pansuality means there are no labels on people just on behaviors that people do. A man and woman have sex that is a traight sexual behavor. It says nothing aobut either one of their preferences. If two guys engage in a sexual act that is a gay behavior Labels only refer to a specific sexual act that a person has had with another human being. Each relationship stands on its own on I can buy that. Certain behaviors are legally wrong as should be. We don't need labels to control behaviors that are not adult/adult fully consenting.

We simply define what sexual acts ard not legally allowed such as adult/minor sexual acts.

I see your point..and in that respect I feel the definition that I put up is wrong.
Sex with miniors and incest and rape will always be wrong and truely (in my book) have no place in Pansexuality.

I thought about this thread today when I was with a group and I mentioned the long hair on that boy. The others corrected me and said no that is a girl, we know her.

How many times have we not been able to tell which gender and it isn't because the boys are in drag or the girls have dildos in their pants and their breast all bound up etc.

There is a small minority of both genders that it is difficult at best to guess the sexuality until they speak and even then it is difficult.

I wonder how this sheds light on the subject. If I can't tell which gender it is and fall for the person and they are the same gender, am I gay?