en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexual
Is pansexualism the end result of
The nihilation of gender_based_roll_playing_idiom_mandate?
Could “pansexual partners” by synonymous for “best friends”?
Either that or a pansexual could be my dog that is humping the fire hydrant it finds attractive.
Our president wouldn't be too happy with this one. Neither would the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic "god".
Go more into this one
pansexualism leads to fried sausages
-Imp
hahahah, what the hell, dude?
Psychologically, almost any body-part/form can be “sexualized” or “desexualized”, and due to the very ‘plastic’ nature of human judgment, the meaning of any act depends upon the personal opinion about it.
If one’s own gender-roll is nihilated, and if sexual arousal [based on physical appearance] is not the main sensation strived-for – there may soon be some degree of pansexualism within the person.
ex:
In choice of a partner, there are far more factors to choose-from/look-for then “tits and ass”. Magickal, graceful creatures, deserving to be pampered and worked-for… if this absolutely subjective and substancesless claim is nihilated, for example, one would feel less drawn to bleed into the other one’s hands. As in: “You don’t really deserve my time, and lust means nothing.”
Today, the surface is what has the glory.
Movies, celebrity’s physical appearances, the taste of junk-food, the appeal of the car… So many of these sorts of things consume the news. At the end of each day, the people have learned basically nothing, as they plug their esteem into the band-wagon of squandered and false “freedom”.
It is one thing to nihilate faith and dogma, but it is quite another to nihilate sexuality and morality…
Yes, but I wouldn’t call it something negative as the term nihilation somehow suggests… well of course these strict gender based roles for sexual behaviour had to be erased, but they weren’t particularly good anyway, were they? Well they came upon us with monotheistical religion I guess, and it was seen as something positive to deny your true self for all the time…
I’m not sure if I have understood your take on this correctly so I ask:
youre right about your description of society, the surface is everything. but with this pansexualism, as the term is put, we somehow break through this surface don’t we?
To me this whole thing suits perfectly our current Individualist societies… the individual is everything and not its prescribed role just because of belonging to a certain gender…
its correct, thats a nihilation of former values etc but wasnt this necessary ?
how else could individuals develop themselves freely…
of course this leaves back certain people with lingering insecurity which has to be beared with… 
Thanks for your thoughts.
your welcome.
from;
OK Comp, Imp, wandertaube (typo?) , DDF
to:
Dan~
I’m with Impenitent,
Pansexualism leads to zucchini or raw liver!
Is it nihilation or anihilation? I didn’t know there was a word such as “nihilation” - could be you’re confusing it for "aninhilation’. Or so it seems from the context of its usage.
On the subject of pansexualism, the director/film-maker David Chronenberg once said that “We are all essentially omnisexual beings, we’ve just been conditioned over millenia of social engineering to pigeonhole ourselves into excepted forms of sexuality that evolve as societies and their taboos evolve.” What’s offensive and acceptable to one culture in the arena of sexuality isn’t so offensive to others.
Nels
Is it nihilation or anihilation? I didn’t know there was a word such as “nihilation” - could be you’re confusing it for "aninhilation’. Or so it seems from the context of its usage.
On the subject of pansexualism, the director/film-maker David Chronenberg once said that “We are all essentially omnisexual beings, we’ve just been conditioned over millenia of social engineering to pigeonhole ourselves into excepted forms of sexuality that evolve as societies and their taboos evolve.” What’s offensive and acceptable to one culture in the arena of sexuality isn’t so offensive to others.
Nels
These pansexualists invented an ideology just for the perfectionism of it. It sounds new-agely good: “Attracted to all humans”
But like with all inventions which try to push many concepts under one roof, it fails. Perfectionism is not a solution for everything.
Humans are attracted to the opposite sex. Homosexuals are abnormal, and I don’t really understand how being gay serves the purpose of replication, which is the only purpose in life that exists.
I happen to be heterosexual --and securely so-- but this whole erroneous argument that homosexuality is not natural, as this poster seems to be implying, is old hat. Sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual preference and sexual identity are independent from mere procreation. Do you honestly only merely think about biological reproduction when you are having sex with your partner? Unless you are actually trying to conceive and have a child, I sincerely doubt that such a thought process is on your mind when you and your partner are getting busy. Now, the refutation to the argument on the unnaturalness --sounds like a George W. word doesn’t it-- of homosexuality: homosexuality is very much a natural sexual orientation, preference and identity, not a life-style “choice” in that it has been documented that such behavior does indeed exist in nature outside of the human realm. Lions, tigers, bears and, oh my, Flipper (dolphins) and Mr. Ed (horses) have been shown to exhibit non-heterosexual behaviors that seemed to be for nothing other than for the sexual pleasure derived from such “unnatural” behavior and not a manifestation of the alpha male and female dominance of same-sex subordinates. You name the variety of animal, and there is likely to have been a wildlife researcher who has observed and documented such behavior. Bonobos --AKA: pygmy chimps-- our closest living relative from the animal kingdom are notoriously highly sexualized animals which they seem to often employ to deescalate conflicts between individuals/groups; gender, heirarchical position and age have almost nothing to do with who is the aggressor and who is the aggressee and it is often impossible to seperate the two where sex between bonobos is involved. You name the sexual activity or position (masturbation, manual genital stimulation of another partner(s)/handjob/fingering/fisting, fellatio/cunnillingus, anal sex, doggie-style, scissoring/lesbian mutual vaginal-clitoral stimulation, homosexuality/bi-sexuality, menage-a-troi, group sex, sex between juveniles and matures/pedophilia, urophilia/copraphilia (hazard a guess as to what those terms mean and try to hold your stomach, etc.) and they do it in spades; except for the possible exception of BD/SM, but were we humans to introduce the plethora of available bondage gear, sex toys, creams and lubricants to the bonobos they’d probably catch on rather quicklly. The issue of transsexuality is another matter all together since there’s no way to know whether a certain subset of non-human animals grow up feeling like their outward physical gender doesn’t match their internal psychological gender identity as is the case with human transsexuals/transgenders who can have their external sexual genitalia surgically reversed were they to wish to do so and could afford to do so since sex reassignment surgery is a medical procedure not covered by insurance companies - at least that is the case here in The States. Some animals that have been shown to exhibit homosexuality as their preferred mode of sexual identity are promiscuous, while others have been shown to maintain long-term life-long relationships with a mutually mmonogamous partner. So, this is further evidence refuting the argument that homosexuals are promiscuous and lack the capacity to form and preserve monogamous bonds. Homosexual humans are just as promiscuous and monogamous as heterosexuals/straights. I have several gay and lesbian friends who have had monogamous realtionships with the same partner for several years, and some of whom are co-habitating quite happily, save for the occasional lovers’ quarrels over trivial things like cooking or who doesn’t do enough of the household chores (i.e.) that are just a natural part of any long-term relationship among humans.
'sall f’now of my Dr. Drew/Dr. Ruth soapboxing,
Nels
A very interesting post, thank you.
It even explained to some degree the necessity of these different forms of sexual attractions for replication. You said it helps to resolve tension within the group. Well, very possibly so. I also guess it has the same purpose as masturbation(refreshing the simen) in some cases. Probably other reasons as well.
I think on some level everyone has some sexual fetish, wether its attraction to a different gender or any other sort of attraction you mentioned.
The problem is when this fetish becomes your sexual preference. It stops your replication, and therefore it is totally stupid from the point of evolution. It is either artificially made by our society or it is a really weird product of evolution, like the huge mantle of the strauss.
Still most of us are heterosexuals, otherwise we would have never survived on our path of evolution.
Therefore homosexualism is in conflict with the natural. Yet it describes a specific a group of people who are a bizzare evolutionary product.
Yet pansexualism being also in conflict with the natural, doesn’t describe any specific group of people, but instead everyone. But I will never use it for myself because I don’t think it is necessary for me or for any other heterosexual to ally themselves with all the groups of sexual perverts there are.
Do not make the all-too-common mistake of associating “sexual fetish” with “sexual preference”. Although there can be some crossover, he terms are exclusive from one another> When one uses the term sexual Fetish (or simply fetish) it is meant to refer to a fixation on any particular thing that one has narrowly sexualized to such an extent that is is the primary and usually the only means for the fetishist to experience sexual arrousal and release. It could be something relatively harmless as a fetish for legs, hair, fingers or any other region of the anatomy to such an extent that that is the only way the given subject acheives sexual arrousal and satisfaction; but, it could involve inanimate objects like articles of clothing (i.e.: stockings/pantyhose/lingerie; clothes that the subject’s fantasy partner wears; uniforms, whether or not the subject or another partner(s) is wearing them; jewelry; shoes/boots/footwear; etc.). It can also involve inanimate objects of a non-clothing nature like food as just one example. Sometimes it can relate to an intensely focussed ritualized behavior (that may have some clinical components to them - obsessive/compulsive) while not necessarilly isolated to things mentioned prior. For example, a given subject’s fetish may involve the act of licking boots while the boots themselves are not the actual fetish, if that makes any sense.
The term “sexual preference” (sexual identity/orientation are also exclusive terms that have their own specific meanings that are not entirely synonymous with sexual preference though there can be some similarities) generally refers to what sex/gender a given individual finds attraction to. The act of sex associated with that particular gender attraction is only a component of the preference, not the preference itself. Sexual identity refers to the sex/gender one identifies themself as being. Usually this correlates to the actual physical/external/anatomical sex/gender of the given subject but not in the case of transsexuals/transgenders who identify internally/introversely as opposite from their anatomical gender> Transsexuality/transgenderedness is not to be confused with homosexual orientation or cross-dressing. A homosexual is attracted to partners of the same gender as they are. Gay males do not want to be women even if they might act effeminate; and, lesbians do not want to be men even if they may exhibit masculine characteristics. Across-dresser is simply someone who finds it stimulating (usually but not not entirely in a sexual sense) to wear clothes normally associated with someone of the opposite sex and has nothing to do with what gender they prefer their partners to be. Although commonly associated with homosexuals, there are straight male male cross-dressers who have no sexual attraction to other males, they just like to wear women’s clothes whether or not they act effeminate while they do it.
The only problem is that you seem to have a problem with it. As long as it is between consenting adults, why should you care or judge what other people do for sexual pleasure. The only person’s sexual identity or preference and the activities thereof you should be concerned with are your own. Anyone else’s is none of your business. Why does it matter what other people do together in the privacy of their own homes with the partners they choose to do it with (so long as no minors are involved)? What possible harm does it pose you if two men you don’t know choose to have regular oral and/or anal sex with one another? I was an adolescent back in the AIDS paranoia of the '80’s and was homophobic back then but gradually relaxed my negative attitudes towards homosexuals because I felt hypocritical since I found the idea of lesbian sex fascinating in the teenage logic of if sex with one female is great, then sex with two or more females is that much more greater (another intentional George W. wording). After awhile, I began to ask myself, why is male homosexual behavior so repugnant while female homosexual behavior is not and even sometimes appealing to some males. Admit it, you’ve had fantasies of making love to more than one female partner simultaneously - most straight males have and some have acted on it. Now, I’m not interested in having sex with another man b/c I’m not sexually attracted to men. Frankly, the idea of male sexual activity is still a little alien to me, but if it floats someone else’s boat, who’m I to tell someone else they can’t explore those feelings and embrace that identity. Hey, what with all the familial/societal/religious flack one gets from coming out, I salute those who do come out b/c it takes a hell of a lot of courage to tell one’s parents, relatives, neighbors, co-workers and the public at large that they are gay or lesbian even still in this day and age of supposedly greater acceptance of gay and lesbian identity from the “mainstream” public.
If homosexuality can be demonstrated as existing in nature beyond the human realm, and that it hasn’t hindered biological replication, then it stands to reason that it is not an unnatural means of expressing sexuality and that it is not --in your words–, therefore, “in conflict with the natural” and that those who identify as homosexual are not a “bizarre evolutionary product.” as thought it were due to a biological mutation perhaps when a radioactive comet slammed into Earth at some time in prehistory therey making a percentage of the overall biosphere gay when before the comet struck homosexuality didn’t exist. Yes, I am being a bit fascicious here, but I am making a point.
Pansexualism (AKA: also known as polyamory) is simply the openness to being romantically/sexually involved with multiple partners of whatever gender and not hiding that fact with any of one’s partners and those partners are quite active with other partners themselves and not hung up about it. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but this is not necessarily the life-style for me when it comes to expressing myself sexually; however, I’m not one to condemn those who are inclined to that life-style. I personally like to focus on one partner exclusively. While I may find another woman attractive and may even fantasize about her, I don’t act on that interest because I’m committed to my current girlfriend and not interested in breaking up a good thing. I have a saying: my eye might wander, but my heart stays put.
'sall f’now.
Nels.
Actually I am very liberal about homosexuals. They can do whatever they want where they want with whom they want. I wouldn’t care if my prime minister was gay, but its not the point.
You said it exists with other animals. Yeah, some animals fuck animals of the same gender, but only sometimes. The same animal will always fuck the opposite gender so it can procreate. So there is realy no homosexualism in nature as far as I know.
Therefore I still think homosexuals are abnormal, it is unnatural. And despite the recent trend for freedom and tolerance, we must not deny that homosexuals are abnormal. Its like we deny now the difference between races. We must not let our ideology affect our brains and knowledge.
You still are unable to separate sexuality from procreation. Sexuality has nothing to do with procreation. Procreation is merely the need to continue to propogate the species. Sexuality is the bond formed thru the act of sex or how one relates and express their identity sexually. Sex, love and sexual reproduction are wholly independent constructs and need to be kept separate. I shouldn’t have to say that love doesn’t always exist with sex and sex doesn’t always correspond with love, but sometimes they go hand-in-hand, and when it does it’s magic.
Yes, homosexual behavior is not exclusive to humans, and no it’s not just random fucking as you so eloquently put. There have been documented cases of animals of the same gender that partner up for long-term life-long sexual relationships with a single partner and do not have procreate with the opposite gender. They genuinely like each other’s company and pleasing their partner. Just because you say it’s unnatural doesn’t make it unnatural. If it’s unnatural, why does it in fact exist in nature? If it’s not in God’s plan for His creatures great and small to engge in such behaviors, why does the behavior exist in the first place? If God is all omniscient and perfect , wouldn’t it stand to reason that anything and everything He creates is perfect and not abnormal, bizarre or abberant.
For someone who claims to possess a wealth of knowledge, it appears you have a lot to learn about your outside world. Try being a little more open-minded and less needlessly judgemental about all that is in the world - it’s a lot better on your constitution.
ciao bello,
Nels.