Pansexuality

Does it really matter?
If a person wants to beyond the limits of being a male or female, then it's his/her decision. Socially thinking, though, pansexuals and bisexuals are treated no different from the usual homosexuals.

Im just another weird guy floating around in this world a male and female its what what people see as normal female and female well all guys just love that and when it comes to male and male just dont hit on me then who realy cares.

I've seen people use it with regard towards their sexual interest outside of humans. Furries and 2-d pictures specifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter's_syndrome

Women have xx
Men have xy
Klinefelters have xxy

You guys all keept pansexuality as a more mature way of bisexuality or interest in 2d. IT IS NOT. Pansexuality is suposed to be the sexual attractiveness for ANYTHING which could cause the feeling of lust. From men, women, animal, plant, arthropoda, molusca, cnidaria, porifera... ANYTHING that can cause lust. So, if someone who does not met this simple, yet complicated, factor, and yet uses it on the other sense, the way more like bisexual sense, they're simply bysexual, they're just using one name wich isn't yet well worked.

Intersexuality?

Klinefelters are male, if I'm not wrong. So, they're not some sort of "new sex"...

sort of.. they can be pseudo male hermaphrodites, hermaphrodites or just small balls and penis males. Which i see no purpose on a pansexual thread but i guess if your genes are split male/female then the sexual impulses could lead to homo or bisexuality. A great debate is if sexual tastes can be from nature versus nurture. In my case i was raised in a christian moral and values stuff up my ass since birth, but i fancy men and women, of course i never got out of the closet to my family yet.. nor will i, but my mom knows.

Then that is just a bunch of fetishes.

what he said

Sprite, somewhat yes. In theory it would be an disfunctionality(?) on wich you woul had a large number of fetishes on wich you could not achieve climax whithout, being those fetishes so engraved in one's mind that it would turn in some sexual preference. What can I say, if it where simple we wouldn't have an discussion about it...

Think of it like this,
Bisexuals are attracted to men. and women.
Pansexuals don't make that distinction, the view sex as sex, regardless of which gender its with.

I.E.
A bisexual says 'Dicks are cool, vagina's are pretty rad too.'
a pansexual says 'Who the fuck cares, holes a hole.'

Not to say pansexuals are nymphos, I'm just exaggerating to make the point.

Okay I had a friend who was bisexual and changed to being....gay? I'm not sure but this is how "she" explained it to me(apparently it is rude to call someone a person by biological and not mental definition). There are to ways to identify oneself as a woman or man. Sex: when someone defines themselves as a male or female biologically. and Gender: How a person defines themselves as a male or female mentally. So "she" identified herself as a girl but happened to have male body parts. Pansexuality I'm pretty sure means that sure there are men and women scientifically. But socially there is no "man" and "woman" just two people who love each other. Anyways that's what I think it means. If there is anyone else who can explain this better or correct me please do.

in regards to the opening post I believe the point of pansexuality is that it's trying to say that there is no need for the defined "institute of marriage" where a man can only love a woman. The rigid social definitions that are upheld by law are rendered meaningless through pansexuality. In other words it's another way of saying all people are equal and all love is equal.

The distinction between sex and gender is the difference between biological and sociological roles respectively. For example, Sex is whether you have boy or girl parts. For someone who was born with both (which is possible, however its extremely rare) or neither, then their sex is dual or none depending on the condition. However their gender would be which social roles they conform to based on current expectations of that gender. So if someone with no sex walked around in a dress and heels and addressed themselves as 'Miss' then their gender would be female. A further example would be a drag-queen, they may be a biological male, however they associate their gender with that of a female.

Gender can also be changed without surgery, all you would have to do is to switch which role you act. If you are a male, put on a dress and pretend to be a female. If you're a female then put on a suit , comb your hair and pretend to be a male. Once again, gender is a role, meaning its simply how you act, nothing more.

A pan-sexual would most likely not make a distinction between a persons sex or gender. This would be by choice, they choose to ignore the differences between male and female on both the biological and social level. Not to be confused with a bisexual individual who would make the distinction, however finds himself/herself sexually attracted regardless.

tl;dr
A bisexual says "Dicks are cool, vagina's are pretty rad too."
A pan-sexual says "Who the fuck cares, holes a hole."

I fail to see how anyone can refuse to accept the gender binary.

I don't see how someone can just refuse to identify a person by a gender. The situation may be skewed, but everyone is an identifiable gender even if it is a gender that they do not associate themselves with. It makes it more seem like just some social fad when there is no clear cut difference between pansexuality and bisexuality.

And I'm sorry, but to say that someone is only attracted to someone because of their personality is utter crap. It's a biological function to be physically attracted to someone. It isn't shameful to be physically attracted to someone, especially when it is augmented by an attraction to their personality.

You fail to see it because you're not a pan-sexual. In the same way Catholics refuse to accept homosexuality and simply push it off as a 'corruption by Satan'.

That's not a particularly good analogy.

Many Catholics don't support homosexuality as part of religious indoctrination and may or may not accept homosexuality in a scientific or social aspect, but religion overrules all other judgments.

I'm not letting my morality speak for me. I just don't believe it is literally possible to only be attracted to someone's personality. Might it start out that way? Sure. But there is always more to being in a relationship with someone than just their looks, and the same can be said for their personality.

Or perhaps think of it this way, it is considered shallow to fall in love someone based solely on physical attraction. Now, how is it any less shallow to fall in love with someone based solely on their personality? Don't let social normality and taboo get in the way of taking your time to answer that question. I mean really; isn't it just as shallow?

But anyway, I guess that was tangential. The point is, I just don't accept that argument. I guess people can claim that personality is everything if the choose, but then I don't believe that they are truly in a healthy relationship.

Edit: Now, I suppose one could argue that one can be physically attracted to someone and not identify them as a gender, but I have to raise an eyebrow at that one.

My analogy was poor, but I was using a common theme to explain a complex idea.



You're using your personal viewpoints and experiences to try and explain others. Which can never work, simply because all people differ.

Shallowness IS a social concept; subject to current philosophies, popular religions and what the latest celebrity did. To answer your question of whether or not that would be shallow I would have to use current social concepts. 1,000 years ago it wasn't shallow at all to have sex for pure physical reasons, I.E. the Greeks.



A pan-sexual doesn't have to completely ignore looks, he/she probably won't jump the bones of a 350lb fat person with cheese stuck in their hair. However that same pan-sexual may find themselves attracted to hippies who have short-to-mid length hair and are relatively in shape. They simply don't care about that hippie's sex or gender.

You've got me there.

But the rest of your arguments are just your interpretation, and aren't really backing up anything, necessarily, to do with pansexualism. But I suppose considering that there is little to go the subject since many people don't even recognize it as a sexual identity, and the lack of pansexuals here who are willing to actually willing to talk about it rather than just go "Herp-a-derp, I'm a pansexual" doesn't leave much to discuss without interpretation.