Any pansexuals here?
- Thread starter Spaceman Spiff
- Start date
i don't care what any fancy-ass psychologist says. no one falls outside of 'male or female'. you're either a male or a female. or your a shemale, which i am afraid i'm not enlightened enough to see as anything other than 'weird'.
people are either a straight guy, a gay guy, a straight woman, a gay woman, a bi-guy or a bi-gal, i don't see it any other way. your sexual preferences are different to what you keep in your underwear. boob+fanny = woman. dick and balls = bloke. end of.
people are either a straight guy, a gay guy, a straight woman, a gay woman, a bi-guy or a bi-gal, i don't see it any other way. your sexual preferences are different to what you keep in your underwear. boob+fanny = woman. dick and balls = bloke. end of.
I don't completely understand their contention either - but then again I don't need to, I'm not them.
But If I understand a couple of people correctly they are primarily straight with the exception in a couple of cases of specific people where they'd have sex with someone of the same sex.
IMHO that makes them bi on very rare occasions but primarily heterosexual. The need for an additional distinction I really don't understand.
I don't have any desire to be with a man and I find the idea to have something with one slightly off-putting, and I just don't like them because they are not women, but I've felt some attraction to masculine features sometimes, and I know that a man could seduce me (but harder than a woman would) and I'd enjoy it if it happens.
Love is another thing, I believe I can fall in love with anyone if the right circumstances are there and they have the right personal charisma and qualities. Once I fell in love with a girl when I wasn't certain she was a girl. True, that was when I was 17, but she could have easily been male - I can assure you I'd still be in love.
But I don't think that's limited to me, I've seen it happen with two of my friends, and one of them found men sexually repulsive (and I think she still does).
I seem to be attracted to only women but I found out when I dated this transgendered girl awhile back that my sexuality-senses apparently have a pretty fluid definition of "women". She was born female but considered her gender to be something other than the the binary scale usually holds, although she had alot of very masculine characteristics about her.
I've also been attracted to cross-dressers and male-to-female transsexuals. I doubt I could actually date a cross-dresser that didn't identify as female on the inside but I might be willing to make out with them. When it comes to my sexuality I've adapted the philosophy of "We'll make it up as we go along" and I just roll with it.
I've also been attracted to cross-dressers and male-to-female transsexuals. I doubt I could actually date a cross-dresser that didn't identify as female on the inside but I might be willing to make out with them. When it comes to my sexuality I've adapted the philosophy of "We'll make it up as we go along" and I just roll with it.
A
Amaris
Guest
I would never slam you over who beeps your buzzer. To each their own, and also, I find Angelina Jolie very attractive myself. Also, Brad Pitt. That amazing bastard.
Have you been talking to any?
Ah, then maybe you should have been listening to the fancy-ass biologist when they started discussing intersexuality.
Or both.
Or neuter.
There's no "enlightenment" needed, beyond a basic understanding of biology.
Which does not mean it doesn't exist beyond that scope, just that you've chosen to limit your understanding to what makes you feel comfortable.
There are no shades of gray, only black and white, and color is a myth, right?
Even if that were biologically accurate (which it isn't), sex and gender aren't the same thing.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yes and no. If one is intersexed, one can have a penis, vagina and breasts. Genitalia isn't always the right indicator.
He's right. There are so many pictures on the net of fat blokes with nice tits. Hell we might even have some posting in this very thread. But they're still blokes.
But we weren't talking about intersexed people. We were talking about men and women.
You're an Aussie. Haven't you ever heard of the Pan-Pacific Games? It's another way of saying 'trans'. But you can't say 'Any transsexuals here?'
Always wanted to write a novel about a person who has both sets of genitals, and after puberty kicks in, cycles between both genders over, say, a two year period (no pun intended). This person would experience the complete range of physical and emotional experience, from being a blonde bombshell to a outdoor rugged individualist labourer. Would experience childbirth from both sides of the coin too.
Last edited:
A
Amaris
Guest
We are talking about intersexed people. Being pansexual/omnisexual, one can be strongly attracted to the intersexed as well.
Now that sounds interesting. I hope you plan on seeing that through. I would certainly read it!
Yes, in general, in the thread, we are talking about that.
In that particular post, I was not.
A
Amaris
Guest
That's what SiorX was pointing out, that genitalia is not always the correct indicator due to intersexed persons. You can say intersexed persons don't count, but then that changes everything, because now you've disqualified a legitimate group of people from their gender by making the choice based on sex organs alone. There are boys who have been born without a penis. Would you tell them they are not boys?
It really depends on the criteria we're using to define "boy." Chromosomes? Sex organs? Feelings?
If a human is born without a penis, I would hesitate to call them biologically male.
A
Amaris
Guest
Well, the conversation seems to have taken a turn toward considering genitalia as the defining characteristic of one's gender.
So if you define it as such, suppose a male has his penis and testicles removed due to spread of cancer. Is he still male?
Yes, he is still male, because he was born male.
And no, I am not defining gender by sex organs alone. Note my use of the word "biologically." Note that I also never said "gender." You're the one putting words in my mouth. You are implying some moral judgment on my part that simply isn't there.
I am talking about biology. I am talking about a person's sex. I am not talking about a person's mental state or gender role or what they believe themselves to be. Sex and Gender are NOT the same thing.
If somebody is born with a penis, testicles, and no other sex organs, they are biologically male simply because of the definition of the word. Their gender may very well be female, and they may choose to live their lives as a female because that is what they feel that they are, but that doesn't change the fact that they were in a male body. That's why we call them "male sex organs."
A
Amaris
Guest
Yet you are, here.
Of course it's biological. What else would it be for a living organism?
I'm not saying anything in terms of morality. That's why I'm asking these questions, because I find your definitions of male and female sexuality to be too limited in practicality.
I just feel your definition is too limited, and too ill equipped to handle every day, real world applications. As I said some time ago, sexuality is rarely as defined as we'd like it to be. I'm actually rather annoyed at Collingwood Nick for pushing this particular tangent.
Similar threads
