Pansexuality
Pansexuality is beyond the mainstream, modern ideals of sexuality. It the alpha, the omega, the delta... it is beyond hetereosexuality and homosexuality. Beyond bisexuality and transgenderism.
Pansexuality refers to the potential of a person to feel romantic love, sexual attraction, and sexual desires towards any and all people of any and all gender identity and physiological sex. This is not bisexuality. This is far more then that. This has no consideration for the gender binary. This has no consideration for traditional sexual orientation... including homosexuality!
It bypasses all tradition, religious or not. It is a purely modern ideal, for it goes around the evolved truth that there are only a set number of genders... but among mankind, among us animals of culture and psychology and philosophy, there are many individuals who don't identify with any gender in particular, no matter how they were born or how they think.
This is beyond the debate over homosexuality. This is pansexuality, something many people are not even aware of existing. A sexuality that sits above all sexuality for human beings, even bisexuality. Nobody in the eyes of a pansexual is off the menu of potential loving mates, no matter whom you are... even if you aren't a man or a women. Even if you're confused. Even if you're totally aware!
But the question now is... based on all perspectives possible - gay, straight, bi, trans, atheist, religious, scientific, spiritual - how should this ideal, this pansexuality, be regarded? What do YOU think about it? Awesome... or... abominable?
How Neat!
Side Score: 6
|
 |
That's Sick!
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
|
If pansexuality is a true mindset and not just a trend, it has been around forever. Those people most likely would have been called bi or gay or w/e depending on the culture they grew up with. Sexuality in human beings is a very complex thing. If pansexuality is NOT bisexuality, this would mean that bisexuality does not include transgendered or no gendered humans. Now, I am not the king of bisexuality, but I am quite sure that those who identify themselves as bisexual are probably okay with transgendered people, if it's their preference. Either way, pansexuality is not a major dissent from other sexualities. It seems more like an attempt to cover all the bases of a non-discriminating sexual person. I, myself, am not discriminant in the sense that I do not remove ideas from the table. I have never found the desire or chance to sleep with anyone other than a woman, but that is only because my sexual endeavors have led me to sex with women. I will not rule out other types of genders, but I wouldn't go as far as to label myself because I truly don't know. If I did find that I could have sex with whoever I want, I wouldn't care what the label of my sexuality would be at that point... it seems to not really matter. Side: How Neat!
1
point
I think pansexuality should be considered a sexuality, as it is more of a response to what you are attracted to then what you believe. you can be a religious pansexual as much as an atheist pansexual. technically im pansexual to a certain extent tho I use the term Bi more. I think that there should be terms between pan and bi and even more, before im not sure if the term existed and if it did it was rarely acknowledge I'd guess. truth is I believe the more understanding we are of sexuality the more sexualities will come in place, because we will stop looking at it in packages and more and more in a spectrum. even in todays society, society has a hard time wrapping its head around bisexuality because it thinks in a way more of "gay or straight". and you can have a sexuality that goes far beyond bisexuality but not as much as pansexuality, and farther beyond pansexuality (which maybe we should come up with the term anthropansexual as well, as pansexual by literature would mean attraction to all, even animals and such tho I know that, thats not what pansexuals mean by pansexual but just to be more defined) sexuality is a lot more complicated than people think. Side: How Neat!
1
point
|
1
point
1
point
How exactly can small cruel little beings on a blue dot floating precariously in the vastness of space alter the creations of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-creating, benevolent god with a set plan for humanity? Free will is non-sense, it suggests that choice is independent of a standard determined by our environment and god. That some how, choice creates its own standard. it can modify its own standard, but something can't create what created it(not with out time travel, and I'm not talking about replication here) Further more, you provide no evidence of what is "truth" and why it is such. Nor do you of the existence of god, or that he made sexuality, rather these are hypothesis your working from. God is a terrible Hypothesis. God is often defined as a set of numerous complex propositions with mysterious relationships to each other. If each proposition had 50/50 chance of being true, then for each proposition the chance that god is true is .5^(N), where N is the number of propositions. Its better to invoke simplifier hypothesizes since they have a higher likely hood of being true. Further more, empirical evidence of his existence(or non-existence) is impossible. Which means most, if not all of god's propositions will never be more likely then 50/50. (aka, god's position as supernatural, as being beyond nature makes him unknowable to nature). Side: How Neat!
|
