Pansexuality is a stupid label

[La Veuve Zin]

FuzzyBlueElf

I have plenty of non-sexual relationships with many people of both biological sexes and culturally accepted gender roles. I don't claim to be pansexual because I have good friends. I don't get how there seems to be a tendency to deny the sexual part of a sexual relationship with "pansexuals."

I'm wondering if these people even understand what a normal sexual relationship is, or if they're just teenagers who are used to the dichotomy of friends vs. boy/girlfriends. As I understand it from my parents, my experiences, and a psychology of human sexual behavior class, in a healthy adult relationship, your sex partner IS your best friend. You have to be friends with, and be able to look beyond anatomy, to be in love with someone. This is not exclusive to pansexuals or whatever, it's what normal adults do. If you're only attracted to someone for their body, they might as well be a hooker. I sure as hell wouldn't marry or even date someone if I didn't like hanging out and talking with them.

[FuzzyBlueElf]

La Veuve Zin

FuzzyBlueElf

I have plenty of non-sexual relationships with many people of both biological sexes and culturally accepted gender roles. I don't claim to be pansexual because I have good friends. I don't get how there seems to be a tendency to deny the sexual part of a sexual relationship with "pansexuals."

I'm wondering if these people even understand what a normal sexual relationship is, or if they're just teenagers who are used to the dichotomy of friends vs. boy/girlfriends. As I understand it from my parents, my experiences, and a psychology of human sexual behavior class, in a healthy adult relationship, your sex partner IS your best friend. You have to be friends with, and be able to look beyond anatomy, to be in love with someone. This is not exclusive to pansexuals or whatever, it's what normal adults do. If you're only attracted to someone for their body, they might as well be a hooker. I sure as hell wouldn't marry or even date someone if I didn't like hanging out and talking with them.

Well said La Veuve. I agree completely. This whole "pansexuality" concept really isn't anything new. It's just being a normal functioning human in a relationship. I feel like this thread needs stamped with a giant "congratulations-you've-unraveled-a-very-pressing-mystery" stamp, and put to rest. I just wish half the posters in this thread get it.

[Comrade Kotek]

While I think the explanations of it in this thread thus far are unsatisfactory... do we really want to be confined to 'bisexual'... implying both sex and gender binaries. That's still my problem with the term.

[Daionii]

FuzzyBlueElf

CherokeeAlex

I was under the impression that pansexuality meant you had no problem dating transgendered people as well as "normal" males and females. It's meant more as you don't care what parts they have or which ones they were born with than that you like to screw around. Granted I'm straight so I could be completely wrong on this, I don't really know anything personally about pansexuality.

Well, thanks for trying to offer insight, but I know a lot of pansexual people who tell me that they don't think they could date hermaphrodite or transexual people. Which is why I made this thread.

In that case they're not pansexual.

[FuzzyBlueElf]

Comrade Kotek

While I think the explanations of it in this thread thus far are unsatisfactory... do we really want to be confined to 'bisexual'... implying both sex and gender binaries. That's still my problem with the term.

um. I just don't understand what is so constricting about the label "bisexual." I don't think bisexuality, in the most basic definition, has anything to do with gender binaries. It's about bodies. I think trying to reiterate the point that there is "another" kind of relationship that is not consciously aware of sex or gender is superfluous.

To be honest, when I'm in a relationship, I very very very seldom think about the fact that I am a man dating and having sex with another man. I think of us on very personal terms that have little to do with sex or gender. I think, "I'm in love with X" not "I'm in love with X, who is a man and walks somewhere between femme and butch."

All sexual identity is for is to pinpoint the physical characteristics of the kinds of people you are attracted to. Whether you are sexually interested in male bodies, female bodies, both, or something in between, labels are made to simplify and explain broader ideas in a single word. Pansexuality doesn't do that. If you want to talk about gender theory, then by all means TALK about gender theory. You don't need a label to skim over the nuances of your identity.

Pansexuality = "Technically, I'm bisexual, but....insert philosophy here." And if you don't want to explain your gender philosophy to someone, then maybe you should reconsider why you think it's so important.

I'm just saying to use the label pansexual as an identity beside bisexuality is divisive and unnecessary to the glbt spectrum. And right now, the last thing we need to do is be resentful or argumentative within or own in-group. Things are changing for the better, or at least trying to, and it would be really nice if we didn't screw ourselves over by adopting new identities and burrowing away from the rights, understandings, and social positions we're finally beginning to accrue.

[La Veuve Zin]

Comrade Kotek

While I think the explanations of it in this thread thus far are unsatisfactory... do we really want to be confined to 'bisexual'... implying both sex and gender binaries. That's still my problem with the term.

True, someone could have come up with a better term. But it's kind of too late for that now...you can't just decide to change the English language all by yourself.

I don't know about y'all, but in my culture it's difficult enough for people to accept that someone can be attracted to both men and women, let alone wrap their pretty little heads around the concept of someone being between genders.