|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 3:01 am
"The rise of the 'pantheosexual' movement will present a new threat to sexual law n' order. Describing heterosexuals, gays, and bisexuals as narrow-minded, pantheosexuals will claim to have erotic feelings for everything from trees to toasters to clouds to all seven genders of human beings." -Millennium Prophecies, the Village Voice News
Thoughts?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 4:00 am
I am more than a bit disturbed that they would have sexual feelings for everything from trees to clouds (unless a cloud was in a shape of something naughty but that would be more of fleeting lust). neutral
Reminds me of stuff I read about people having relations with animals and this episode of My Strange Addictions where this guy claims to have a sexual relationship with his car.
I try to keep an open mind as I know what it is like to be judged and hated but I think this kind of crossing the line. I guess I can handle inanimate objects (besides certain toys as that is their purpose) more so as it isn't really abuse, but I strongly disagree with animals and underage people/kids as that is over the line completely.
I remember people keep saying that about pansexuals were like that and confusing terms.
I'm tired, probably sleep before commenting on something like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 4:16 am
My impression of it was that they don't actually have sex with everything, but simply have an erotic feeling for everything. Like, an intense lust or passion for the world. Something akin to spiritual ecstasy, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:43 am
I saw something on tv yesterday about a man in love with his (male) car. lol
But that's a "prophecy" from the late 90's, regarding the impending doom & gloom of the new Millennium. It just sounds like they were being facetious. I guess the pansexuals prevailed over the pantheosexuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:51 am
Really???....really?
I'm trying to be as open minded as possible, but I just can't seem to pass this one through.
... ******** it. as long as they're nice persons, they're cool with me. sue I'm gonna be asking myself "what the ********?" all of the time, but meh...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 7:23 am
Lol, there are so many of theeeesssseeeeee... I'll just stick with the main four.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:25 pm
Seven genders? i only know 3
anyway....these people would probably take treehuggers to a whole new level! lol it's simply ridiculous
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:54 pm
Whatever floats your boat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:48 pm
Seven genders? I have all seven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 4:35 pm
I don't think I'll ever be able to understand this. But hey, people can live their lives however they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:38 pm
Centipedes In Utero I saw something on tv yesterday about a man in love with his (male) car. lol
But that's a "prophecy" from the late 90's, regarding the impending doom & gloom of the new Millennium. It just sounds like they were being facetious. I guess the pansexuals prevailed over the pantheosexuals. I wonder if that was episode I was just talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:03 pm
Another label?
I'm sorry but the creation of more orientation labels is regressive. We shouldn't need to define who or what we love, we should just be able to love freely, end of story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 9:29 pm
Animals and children = Over the line. That causes harm, since they really can't say, "Okay, you can have sex with me and I'm totes fine with it." And you could physically harm them.
Objects = ... Okay, but you're very, very weird and you probably shouldn't be loving something that can't return your feelings, as that could be unhealthy... but whatever. I'm not saying you can't, I'll just say you're crazy and I'll leave you alone. :I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 2:50 am
The comedian Louis C.K. did a bit similar to this. He explained that when he was nine years old and was beginning to develop erections he would run through the house bumping his p***s into things at random just to feel it. It's like an impulse where you just need to feel something touching you. But then he got older and defined exactly what he wanted to be touching his p***s. Pantheosexuals are probably not this funny when they do it. Of course I'm referring to adults doing this, who have supposedly matured and know how to have sex with another person. Maybe it's just that they never grew out of their need to just feel something touching them, and some people pick one object that is really important to them, such as the man and his car, then develop actual feelings for it.
I don't care if someone wants to jerk-off a dog. Like it's gonna complain. Animal sex is a touchy subject, as is sex with children((haha)), but ***** is wrong and there is no one thing that could excuse a person for it.
Now all that aside, I think it's hilarious and will laugh every time I hear about a new case. Or at least chuckle. Laughter is a form of passing judgement, so yes, I'm being judgmental. I laugh at sex all the time, anyway. You have to know when to not take it seriously in order to enjoy it to the fullest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 1:48 pm
Wait, now I'm confused. I thought people who were into objects were called objectsexual and those people usually do not make connections to anything alive? And as for people into animals and young children, I thought the same rule applied to them. What the hell is this new term? Do I need to Google this? eek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
