Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-11-2010, 06:56 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit View Post
So I'm still grinning about the term 'pansexual' - with visions of fuzzy sheep and little green aliens who have stopped by for a visit all piled into one bed. Woooooooo Hooooooooo
To me pansexual sounds rather pagan, as if someone were only interested in Pan, the Greek god of the sheep flock.

"Pan was depicted as a man with the horns, legs and tail of a goat, and with thick beard, snub nose and pointed ears. " http://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/Pan.html

I guess I would have a better chance if I were a nymph as pan likes to date them... could they possibly be nymphamorous perhaps or nymphsexuals.

So my question is would I be panamourous if I consider myself pansexual and wanted to identify with the love in my heart rather than sexual preference?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-11-2010, 08:08 AM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Thank god I am simply straight and mono You people are soooo complicated
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-11-2010, 08:17 AM
JonnyAce JonnyAce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Thank god I am simply straight and mono You people are soooo complicated
i noticed the 3 extra "o"s there, instead of just the 1, and only 1 that's needed. very interesting
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-11-2010, 08:19 AM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyAce View Post
i noticed the 3 extra "o"s there, instead of just the 1, and only 1 that's needed. very interesting
Very observant...I'll keep an eye on those naughty "oooos"..don't they know there is a one letter limit?....must be the poly alphabet
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-11-2010, 08:24 AM
JonnyAce JonnyAce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Very observant...I'll keep an eye on those naughty "oooos"..don't they know there is a one letter limit?....must be the poly alphabet
so now we're not good enough for your mono alphabet.

(ok i'm done hijacking this thread, apologies to the OP)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-15-2010, 02:28 AM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

"I think heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual etc are just fine as referents to SEXual orientation (ie. who you have or had sexual attraction to), in fact, I prefer when this usage is done exclusively. If you want a set of terms to refer to love, use homoamory, heteroamory and biamory etc. I am a homoamorus bisexual, for example. I have had attraction to men and women at some time or another, but only love men."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7190043AAB0eG8

So others agree..., not all "bisexuals" are biamorous. Perhaps a neologism is called for.

Most of these people have very little clue what the hell they are talking about!:

http://www.okcupid.com/forum?tid=631...5628378&low=65

Allow me to provide a clue to/for the perplexed.:

a. Love is not the same thing as sex.

b. Sex with love may be the most freaking mind-blowing thing you cannot imagine!

c. Fucking someone doesn't mean you love them.

d. Loving someone doesn't mean you are fucking them.

e. Yes, some people really do love people!

f. Send a self-addressed stamped envelope and three thousand dollars to..., and I'll provide you with a "free" clue. Just pay shipping and handling.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog

Last edited by NeonKaos; 02-06-2010 at 03:47 PM. Reason: merge posts
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-06-2010, 03:03 PM
Thunderlizard's Avatar
Thunderlizard Thunderlizard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary AB
Posts: 41
Default

Regardless of the label applied (although, for the record, "biamorous" or "panamourous" really feel like repetitive terms).. if you're bi or pansexual, you're interested in relations with either/any gender identification.. if you're open to relations with them, you're most likely open to relationSHIPs with them. I for one can't be bothered to have sex with someone I don't care at least a little about, so I don't see the difference between, for example, "bisexual" and "biamorous".. if I want to sleep with you, I probably like you, and possibly could love you.. if I like you, it's entirely possible that I might want to sleep with you, and if I love you, that possibility goes up exponentially.
THAT BEING SAID.. I would absolutely invite you to identify however you are most comfortable.. the value of "labels" is their ability to transmit larger amounts of information in a smaller, more concise way. Therefore, we choose and invent labels to avoid longer explanations and try to reduce confusion. I'm not big on them.. but I am always interested in hearing them, in an attempt to understand that person.
Being married to a self-proclaimed pansexual polyamorous lesbian who's chosen to marry hetero... (yes, it makes sense.. she chose me specifically, as a human, not as a gender.. she still believes that if it were not for me she'd be dating/in relationships with women only, and just occasionally enjoying the company of a man, but not in relationships with them.. and she'd still desire other female lovers too.. wow.. see? complex).
This has the benefit of helping one understand the value of short forms. Hearing her explain to someone her life theories is sometimes unbelievably complicated.. as you can see.
I think the only real drawback is when people mistake the label as "the last word" or misunderstand them.. or even deliberately misrepresent them. (Like when people say bisexuals are just confused.. bull) It's a hint about someone, a starting point.. eventually, humans can only be understood by taking their complexity into account.

Apply or wear labels as you wish.. do so justly and without malice.. they do have some value.. even if they're only a starting point to a greater understanding.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-06-2010, 03:49 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderlizard View Post
........if you're open to relations with them, you're most likely open to relationSHIPs with them. I for one can't be bothered to have sex with someone I don't care at least a little about, so I don't see the difference between, for example, "bisexual" and "biamorous".. if I want to sleep with you, I probably like you, and possibly could love you.. if I like you, it's entirely possible that I might want to sleep with you, and if I love you, that possibility goes up exponentially.
Yea - as you can see here, labels often are just an important part of people trying to understand and define themselves.

Lizard and River's different (but in the end similar) perspectives on the connection between love & sex are probably the biggest divides in perspectives of people on a wide scale.

River sees (the potential) for sex and love to stand alone OR combine.

Lizard still pretty much connects the two, so sees no need for any differentiation.

So to Lizard I would just remind that although that's your personal view, there ARE people out there in the world that ARE comfortable being sexual with the either gender in a particular setting, but are incapable of forming any true bond with one of those genders. And there are those that are capable of forming deep bonds with either gender but incapable of being sexual with one or the other (or both!).

So for those trying to sort out their own sexuality & amorous feelings it gives a method of distinction. And for others who understand these complexities a word speaks volumes.

GS
Reply With Quote
  #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
  #20  
Old 02-07-2010, 12:20 AM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default

ROFL !
But yea - we're with you on the whole labeling thing. We regularly rail against them in general.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderlizard View Post
....... 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.
But here I'm afraid you've really stepped over the line. I would suggest maybe moving with no forwarding address. Otherwise be expecting a knock on your door from PETA, Sheep Lovers United and last but NOT least the Marginalization Police ! Because you're definitely guilty of marginalizing the poor fuzzies. And THEY think that's a very baaaaaaaaaa-d idea !



GS

sorry - that was plain naughty - but too hard to resist. Simply a moment of weakness
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:08 PM.