View Single Post
  #19  
Old 02-06-2010, 11:21 PM
Thunderlizard's Avatar
Thunderlizard Thunderlizard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary AB
Posts: 41
Default

Actually I didn't firmly connect the two directly... I said "most likely" and that it's "possible". I would, if pressed, even insert "often" into that thought.
Obviously there are individuals unique in their outlook in every demographic.
I live with one every day.. I thank the stars for her uniqueness.
I agree that there may be instances where sex and love stand alone, and / or combine.

However, my point was intended more to be about the labels.. and that "heterosexual" doesn't have a balancing "heteroamorous" definition.. it's understood that it's not all about the sex.. it implies orientation, preference, or bias towards the opposite gender, so the terms may refer to either a preference for sexual partner gender, a preference for love interest gender, or both, or neither. (Although, if neither, the application of any label would seem superfluous).
The term "pansexual" , for instance, is most often used to describe someone who cares not about gender, gender identification, or lack thereof.. in their ROMANTIC interests, not their sexual interests. They care simply that you're human. And actually, if you speak to a pansexually identified person.. they are often pretty insistent that you're human... really! Sheep and aliens are most often disqualified from being loved on a romantic OR sexual level (unless the alien is really cute, in which case some special dispensation may be issued). Those who love sheep have thier own labels. I'm not going NEAR that issue.
However, I know several pansexuals.. and those individuals assure me that it's about the ability to LOVE anyone they meet, no matter who that person is or how they gender identify, that counts. Sleeping with that person will follow or not, depending on how the interpersonal part develops.

I was just kinda thinking that the more we split hairs in labels, the more cumbersome they become, and now we're back to not having "quick explanations" but instead have "the long story". It's the reason part numbers were invented, for instance.. "66-271004" is more effective than trying to fit "the rubber band that connects the upper fritzlefram housing to the lower grapplegrommet assembly in a 1966 harley davidson sewing machine with the zig zag setting and the buttonhole attachment, but not the rhinestone setter" on a label for the shelf. (btw.. I made that one up).

However, if someone is happier being referred to as "biamorous", then they should absolutely use the term. In the end, I prefer "happy anyone" to "unhappy" anyone

Last edited by Thunderlizard; 02-06-2010 at 11:30 PM.
Reply With Quote