Apologies for the lack of contact recently loads of things have been happening and aside from applying for jobs – yawn – and preparing my MA – yawn – and managing my finances – help – it is midnight and I am suddenly wanting to write a post, and send some love out to my people, my friends, whoever you are.
Today I’m going to raise a question about Pansexuality and see if I can answer it so it might well be a boring post and there might be few images (though I might pop in a few of myself) but let’s see where we get.
And as per uzsche when it comes to what I consider ‘smart posts’ as opposed to ‘inane ramble’, I’m going to try and take my time (or as much as I can at midnight) and not assume that I understand what I’m talking about (too much).
Sooo if we’re going to talk about pansexuality (whether it exists, the nature of it’s existence etc) we first have to start with some defining terms so we know what we’re talking about. You might in fact be unaware that it exists (assuming it does). Combining the Greek word Pan (meaning all or every) and the well known word SEXUAL (one of my favourites, and if you don’t know coming from the Latin sexualis, being sexual, which I actually prefer), you can come to conclusion that it is sexual … frivolities with AAALL peoples/genders/sexes etc. (hopefully assuming that they are consenting adults)
So as not to get too bogged down with etymologies, definitions and intricacies, there are some heavily present ideas when we talk about sex – firstly that there is a nature to being sexual. So I think the question we really ought to be asking is “How are we to understand the nature of our sexual capacity?” (assuming that it has a nature common to most human beings and also assuming we have a capacity for sex)
What might this nature consist of? I’m sure that many of you already are aware of sexuality such as being straight, gay or bi. Similarly you ought to be aware of things like fantasy, fetish, desire, appetite et cetera. In things like fantasy and fetish it appears that there is a want. When we desire, is it as simple? Is it a need instead? Is it a splurge of both wants and needs? If, for instance, one was expected to live a life without sex, would one go mad? Haah I’m sure that there are a few people who that might be true of, but the opposite might well be true as well – for example, sex addicts re: the former, and asexuals re: the latter.
So there are many, many different dimensions of sex. And one of the dimensions, that it appears is rather crucial, is gender (the latin for which is sexus) You might think that gender and sex (sex as in biological sex, or what’s downstairs) is the same thing. In many cases they go hand in hand – people with penises are called men and usually exhibit masculine qualities. People with vaginas are called women and usually exhibit feminine qualities.
And people with penises who are attracted to people with vaginas (and vice versa) are usually called men attracted to women (and vice versa) aka HETEROSEXUALS.
And people with penises who are attracted to others with penises and people with vaginas attracted to others with vaginas are usually called men attracted to men and women attracted to women, aka HOMOSEXUALS aka GAYS and LESBIANS.
But – and you might be with me in having an inkling to where this is going – life isn’t nearly as clear cut as this. I, going from my own experience, understand that there are things such as feminine men. The Greeks even had a GOD FOR THEM – Hermaphroditus . And no, that didn’t mean he had both parts (though that is where we get the word), but he was an exclusive individual with the body of a lady but the genitalia of a man. He was praised for second sight, and although I’m not quite psychic, I think that the Greek view of mankind was actually a pretty good one (cept of course, all the pedophilia that went down) (though at least they recognised it rather than shying away from it).
And in the same vein as the above, I will assume you can get masculine women (affectionately labelled by me ‘geezerbirds’).
And of course there are transsexuals amongst the best – and the worst – of our society, potentially unknown, sometimes not so much. I’m not too into the idea that one can be ‘genderqueer’ (though maybe I’m old fashioned) – one is what one is, whether that is a man, a woman, or a complex mixture of the two, or with gender dysphoria and actively wanting to change sex. Genderqueer appears to just jump on a bandwagon that’s been going since (as I already said) the Greeks.
So the question remains – how are we to understand this nature of our sexual capacity. Not our capacity to understand our own gender – that’s a different talk (despite it coming up above). But sexual capacity. And of course, we’ll have to get to pansexuality.
So the capacity looks to others (and in my case, occasionally oneself – see the many dreams I have had performing autofellatio >rolls eyes at self<) and in these others, people may find beauty, desire, lust, longing, love, et cetera. Sexual identities are, of course, important, and it is down to these that we can label ourselves. I wouldn’t be too keen to label others. I don’t actually like labels very much, again – one is what one is – but hey, due to our frontal lobe we love all this organising and compartmentalising crap.
So the question is, when it comes down to finding someone to love – or to fuck – who are we going to choose? And of course another big issue is whether they’ll choose you back!
And when it comes to crunch time – what would you do if you were attracted to someone and they defied everything you thought you knew about your sexuality? This is why I’m not too fond of these labels. It’s like the whole ‘age is just a number’ thing, or (one I frequently get) ‘is it a man, is it a woman? do I mind?’ – people are people. And as far as I can get, from what I’ve read, this is the main gist of Pansexuality.
So is it an appreciation of the beauty (nb. Use of ‘Pan’ in Pantheism – God is in the beauty of the natural world etc) that resides in each individual human being? The Pan part may potentially be a bit misleading; rather than loving all humans, is it a commitment to a particular human that you might love, regardless of what you thought you loved before? I mean you might not care – Pansexuality defies the gender binary as much as the best LGBT activists.
What then, is the difference between this and BIIIIsexuality? Surely bisexuality is an acknowledgement that it doesn’t matter who you sleep with (in terms of what’s downstairs)? There is an argument for that, and I still remain on the fence regarding it (maybe). I love Alfred Kinsey’s view in that every human is never 100% ANYTHING . And I think, philosophically, this is a valid, and practical, way of viewing one’s sexuality.
The view might say the following: Never say to yourself that you are 100% straight – one day you might fall for someone who is of the same sex as yourself. Never say you’re 100% gay, you might fall for someone the opposite sex. Never say you’re 100% bisexual – that is merely a nonsense doomed to failure; there is always going to be a preference UNLESS – you are pansexual and you simply don’t see it that way? I think you can, completely, be 100% pansexual because the other sexual definitions take gender and biological sex into account. Pansexual doesn’t. It just asks people to love people, regardless.
And hopefully if you love sex enough, and you are into the person enough, there shouldn’t be much difference.
What though, am I leaving out? “I am repulsed by vaginas” you might scream. Granted, I say, with a nod of the head. “What if you were in love with a particular lady,” I ask. You might reply, “well she’d have to get a strap on.” Which appears to be an appropriate response, no?
I hope this puts sooome things into sooome perspective. It can be difficult understanding sexuality at the best of times – but you can’t rule out the ‘what if?’. So really the conclusion that might be drawn is that Pansexuality is actually unnecessary unless one is put into the position where they can say – I do not care who I am having sex with, for I am in love with the wholeness of this person regardless of their body (in the sense that the body could potentially be different).
So, thinking about it, it almost amounts to the same thing, because if a person is in love, they are going to say that they love the wholeness of the person anyway. Whatever sex. Whatever gender.
Perhaps then, pansexuality is merely so others can understand what it might be like, should you wake up and be thrown into the veritable tornado that is – love. And as per uzsche, that’s what it’s all about, init?
I’d love to hear some responses on this. I know it’s a little haphazard, I am tired but I suddenly got the urge to write. All criticism will be taken constructively, obviously. It’s actually irritated me a bit, I think, true to Wittgensteinian form, we’re getting lost in the language games. Hmmmfuck.
Loads of loveflove ❤