Any pansexuals here?
- Thread starter Spaceman Spiff
- Start date
You like men. Manly men. They're men in tights. Yes.
You can burst into song now.
What's he qualify as?
To use a Star Trek hottie. 
Well, I think it's more about meeting someone that triggers an awareness of the possibility of attraction, which was the case with me. I'm far more attracted to women than men, so much so that I wouldn't call myself "bi." I definitely find some men attractive; I just can't see seeking them out.
So hypothetically - right time, right place, right guy - and you'd have no problem playing with a man's dick? In fact you'd enjoy it?
Ah, you think. Kinda like the same 'obsession,' that some straight men have with boobs.
It's called healthy sexuality.
Like most men, I'm simply curious. You know like the curiosity and fascination some people have with pornography.
I like porn, though I can't say I'm all that interested in what kind of porn other people like.
Ah, you think. Kinda like the same 'obsession,' that some straight men have with boobs.
Your sense of humour could do with a bit of fluffing, however.
No hypothetical about it; I've gone all the way with a fella. I'll grant it was only the one guy, but we got together more than once. I would have pursued a relationship with him beyond sex but I wanted to move to San Francisco and he was happy staying in Santa Cruz.
In reality Robert I find more modern sexuality fascinating. I'm over 40 now and when I grew up most people grew up straight and if you were gay you were encouraged to stay in the closet. I grew up in a world pre Will and Grace where homosexuality was much less accepted.
In today's world younger people - seem more more comfortable with sexual experimentation and it's a foreign concept for me - and had you read my other posts on the subject - it's difficult for me to understand how men [since I'm a gay man] would so easily slide between sexual experiences between the sexes.
For me my taste and desire for men is very set - so I'm just trying to understand [especially younger folks] ability to have sexual experiences with both men and women without having a more rigid desire for one sex.
Does this make sense? Does my 'curiosity,' make more sense?
Also, with regard to my obsession with dicks - also in my experience men who are OK with a male-male sexual experience but also primarily identify as 'straight,' typically are unwilling to be an active participant in gay sex but just get their dick sucked. Because most men will allow virtually anyone to suck their dick.
Then why the very gay avatar? A cute blonde, in a yellow and blue sexy outfit which screams gay, is quite the turn on for a gay man like me. YMMV
Says the immature boy posting on a Star Trek board?!
Well until you people start figuring this stuff out for yourselves, I'm going to have to carry the responsibility.
If you all spent less time watching Star Trek and more time learning what the prefixes 'omni-' and 'pan'- meant, we wouldn't be in this situation.
You are aware that people who have strict definitions of sexuality do so because they are very insecure in their own sexuality... aren't you?
I'm 41 and I definitely got the sense in university there was a fair amount of experimenting going on, though in high school there definitely weren't openly gay kids on campus (though there were ones "everyone" knew about).
Like I said I prefer the female form and the majority of guys do nothing for me, but occasionally I'll see someone walking down the street who turns my head or I'll be browsing for underwear and see a model on a box and say "hey..."
With regard to the dick action, it was mutual. I'll spare the details just because I don't feel like writing a Penthouse Letters column here.
True, but I don't know any gay equivalents off-hand.
My definition of "make-out" doesn't include any sort of genital play. That would fall under sex for me. Believe it or not I'm actually fairly modest in person.
If it was a male-to-female transsexual on hormones she would have a female sex drive and her body would respond in different ways (touch) and I'm sure we could find some ways to have some fun without penetration.I'd also like to go on the record as saying chromosones are over-rated. All an XX or an XY means is that you were statistically most likely to have been born with certain parts. People come with built-in gender identities and then are sociliazed to make their biult in genders as close as possible to what society dictates as the norm.
The TNG episode Outcast tried to deal with that and IMHO failed miserably as Trek's first attempt to deal with homosexuality/'omni sexuality,' on so many different levels.
IMHO the series could have done much better in making Wesley for example a gay character.
Some of the writers actually fought for normalizing homosexuality in TNG, but they were shut down by Berman/Paramount. They wanted to do things like have same-sex couples holding hands and such in Ten Forward. Just making it out to not be a big deal at all, as it should be in the 24th century. "The Outcast" was the closest the producers and studio were willing to go on the homosexuality issue.
I dunno if I can blame Paramount or Berman or not for that decision because Outcast first aired in 1992. People's attitudes toward homosexuality were vastly different in 1992 than they are today so we'd be judging them through the prism of more modern sensibilities on such things. Furthermore, Trek's demographics skewed to 18-35 year old males and any male/male on screen affection would have been taboo at the time and possibly turned off the viewers.
I guess my issue with Outcast episode isn't because Paramount want to play it safe with the demos but rather they tried at all because the episode fails IMHO on many levels - notably the Riker is attracted to the "he-she" because it skews towards being a female.
edited to add: You now what was disappointing though about Trek is by the time Enterprise aired they lacked the balls much later than 1992 to address the issue but did not again but could have without a negative fan reaction.
Similar threads
