Not too long after I published “TBT: What is Pansexuality?” my protege, Cityman, and I had a discussion about choice, what we choose, how we choose, and who we choose when we – people in general – get horny and having sex is a great idea.
He has a knack of bringing up subjects after I’ve written something that’s both timely and pretty amazing. So, we started out talking about one of his male lovers and one that’s been with him almost from the beginning and, in particular, this guy’s love of huge, Black dick. His FWB occasionally photo-bombs him with pics of dicks he either wants to suck, is going to suck, or he’s already sucked it and Cityman has asked him why he’s not more… diverse about the dicks he sucks since Cityman is the only white guy he has sex with.
His FWB can’t really explain it but says that if the guy isn’t Black and the dick isn’t all big and scary, he’s just not interested… but that doesn’t explain why he’s been Cityman’s off and on lover for a few years now. Cityman thinks his FWB has a culturally-imposed dislike for anyone who isn’t Black and often thinks that this “size queen behavior” is environmental – the guy lives in a predominately Black area and, hmm, a lot of the men there have really big dicks, it seems. Cityman can get him to intelligently acknowledge that any dick can be sucked and enjoyed and that he could suck even more dick by expanding his choices.
And the guy just doesn’t do it – he just sticks with what he likes more than what he knows. Likewise, Cityman and I will talk about his own approach to diversity and he’s just as guilty as his FWB is when it comes to sticking to what he prefers and rarely differentiates far from his preference in men… but there’s really nothing all that strange about that since this is pretty much how a lot of people go about getting their sexual jollies.
So, as an intellectual exercise, pansexuality isn’t a “bad” mindset to have; when you want to have sex, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s with a male, female, transgender, genderqueer, the list goes on and on… but it does matter and it has always mattered since, for the most part, no one really just jumps into bed with “just anyone” even for a one-night stand.
We want what we want and the way we want it; we do, in fact, pretty much know that if we wanted to, we can get sex in, ah, non-preferred ways but we are creatures of habit and, for the most part, will stick with what we know over that which we don’t know much about… even when what we know might not be working as well as we’d like it to.
There’s a few running topics on the forum about “shemales” – transsexuals and even a couple about transgenders and the fellas are kinda all over the place on the topics; some would give someone else’s right arm to sleep with a transsexual while others have laced up their sneakers and are ready to jet in the opposite direction even though, at the least and in theory, it’s still someone they could have sex with.
If they wanted to. It’s really a question of if they could, would they? What boxes would have to be checked? What’s the “real” attraction? Is it that many transsexuals have breasts… or is it that many have really big dicks… or is it both? Is it a transsexual’s mannerisms, which tend to be more feminine than masculine… well, until that dick gets hard? It seems to me that one can be quite pansexual in thought… but perhaps not so much in deed – and it’s one of the reasons why I question pansexuality as being a “real” thing as opposed to an idealist approach to sex (in particular and for the purpose of this scribble).
Even in the world of male bisexuality, we see… schisms; there are tops and there are bottoms and there’s even a lot of fluidity here since, these days, guys aren’t just versatile; no – they are now stating their sexual roles as either top/verse or bottom/verse and with what they prefer being listed first and foremost and, okay, that just kinda baffles me and gives me a sense that I’ve lost track of what’s really going on because just like pansexuality, I don’t see how being top or bottom/verse is really any different that just being versatile since, um, just because it doesn’t matter to a guy whether he tops or bottoms, it’s still a matter of what he feels like doing and who he wants to do it with.
Would a top/verse guy want to get naked with a transsexual… and one who also maybe be either a top, a bottom, or some flavor of versatile? Depends on him, doesn’t it? In theory, sure – they can have sex of some kind… but as a matter of course, that top/verse guy might feel some kind of way getting with someone who acts feminine, has feminine features from the belly button up… and just might be more hung than he is and just as eager to put the puppy to use… and even for a top/verse kind of guy, eh, that might not be his idea of fun even if it does sound good on paper.
The author I mentioned yesterday gave an example that included someone saying, “I don’t like Asian men…” and whether or not it was socially acceptable to say this. Well, yeah, people say stuff like this all of the time and for whatever reason they have for not liking Asian men. It’s probably rude and not very PC to make a statement like this and Asian men happen to hear it, not that some people give a fuck if they do hear this sentiment or not. That very human behavior, by itself, makes pansexuality a difficult concept to embrace beyond the theoretical… but, again, this isn’t any different from how people have always behaved.
Again, I ain’t saying that pansexuality cannot be embraced because a lot of people do and simply because it makes sense… but does it work under the auspices of practical application? I know I can have sex with anyone who’d agree and consent to having sex… but I also know I won’t have sex with “just anyone” because, sure, there are some people I wouldn’t have sex with because I’m not feeling them as a person and I’m not talking about their physical form. If, crudely, you’re not my idea of a cunt or an asshole, we can do a little something-something.
What pansexuality, by its definition, seems to exclude is people being who they are while focusing on what they happen to be… and people are still pretty damned funny and picky about who they have sex with. Folks who are, um, gender minded? Okay… doesn’t really matter if they feel they are male, female or neither… but they’re still people and people want and need to have sex. So excluding them from the sex/sexuality discussion really doesn’t make sense but, yeah, we’re still human and if you’re not like us, you’re against us.
It might piss some people off or otherwise offend them but pansexuality seems to say that everyone can be sexually objectified and no one should be discriminated against due to their sex or gender when it comes to being able to have sex with someone who wants to have sex.
Humans do not work like that in practical application so is pansexuality more of a socially engineered concept and one that attempts not to exclude people? It seems that way to me – and I do know that I could be wrong. After having a full twenty-four hours to think about this – and with the addition of the conversation I had with Cityman – I’m still having a very difficult time seeing how this is any different from anything people are wont to do when it comes to having sex.
If ya don’t mind, it doesn’t matter. Some people do mind… and some don’t. For some, it’s “just sex” and for others, it’s more than just being able to give into that basal urge to get your rocks off and, preferably, you want to do that with someone you can, at the very least, get along with or otherwise meets whatever criteria you have in place.
Even when you know that, theoretically, you can have sex with anyone… but you also know and learn – sometimes the hard way – that you shouldn’t just have sex with anyone, oh, like your mortal enemy or, realistically, anyone you ain’t feeling, getting along with, whatever makes you not want to get naked with someone and expose your vulnerable spots.
Still not saying that pansexuality isn’t a real sexual orientation but I still question whether it’s a practical one and, again, not just a social construct more than anything else. Is gender the key difference? I don’t really think so, nope, not with what I’ve learned about people and sex. Gender, such as it is, well, it’s what it is for someone; if a transgender man is now a woman and wants to eat some pussy, well, she can do that and I wouldn’t say anything “bad” about it. If a transgender woman is now a man and wants to suck some dick or use her surgically created dick on someone – male or female in form and function, nope – not gonna say too much about that either… because there’s no point in it. Ya might change your physical form into the sex you feel you belong in; you can adopt the gender role that’s historically be assigned and coupled with the sex you are – male or female – and, yep, you can even say that when it comes to gender – the act of being male or female – neither of those things apply to you.
But people still want and need to have sex and it’s always been a matter of if you don’t mind who you’re doing it with, it doesn’t matter… and people do – or do not – mind according to their needs, worldview, and other perceptions. Is bisexuality really that different from being pansexual? Not with what I’ve learned – still don’t see it. At the end of any day, it’s still a matter of choice; it’s engaging one’s carefully crafted decision tree processing and ultimately deciding that getting naked and having sex with someone is warranted, possible, a potential mistake or just might be the thrill to end all thrills.
Pansexuality doesn’t address the human factor – the W5H thing I wrote about some time ago. I could sleep with a transsexual… but would it be in my best interests at that moment to do so? Maybe… and maybe not – depends on the person they are underneath what I can see. Would I exclude them based upon their chosen gender assignment? Nope… but if they’re my idea of a cunt or asshole, ain’t gonna happen. If I don’t feel that I’m going to be safe with them, it ain’t gonna happen. If they wanna do something I ain’t even thinking about doing and wouldn’t do with anyone as a matter of principle, it ain’t gonna happen.
Pansexuality as a practical application fails. Utterly. Still sounds good on paper, though since we, theoretically, shouldn’t discriminate when it comes to having sex since, you know, we kinda like sex a lot. Doesn’t change the fact that we do discriminate and I don’t necessarily mean this in a bad way but, yeah, we do it with bad intentions as well because we are forever and ever human. Shit, even sexuality as a human construct tends to fail because there is a huge difference between what we can do… and what we will do. Gay men do have sex with women; likewise, lesbians do have sex with men even though we – and some of those folks – are of a mind that it’s not supposed to happen and it just can’t happen. We do go about this and as if it’s impossible to change our minds once we’ve made up our mind that this is the way I want to have sex and satisfied our unique versions of W5H.
It’s what we want to do… not so much what we can do, you know, if we really wanted to and a lot of us don’t want to and for whatever reason makes sense to us so, to that end, sexuality, again, tends to fail – it just doesn’t fail as much as the concept of pansexuality seems to and in my opinion. Yes, we should accept everyone regardless to sex and/or gender… we just don’t roll like that as a matter of course because at the end of yet another of many days, it boils down to I want what I want and the way I want it, no exceptions or deviations.
And we do believe that exceptions and deviations are “impossible…” which is part and parcel of how and why bisexuality just literally blows a lot of minds because it’s not impossible for exceptions and deviations to not only occur but to be warranted… because sex has always been a “people” thing more than a social engineering kind of thing. You’re gonna do the nasty with anyone you damn well please to do it with and regardless to what anyone else has to say about it and, sure, if they’re the same sex as you are, it is what it is – mind your business. If there are some gender things in play, ditto – mind your business and your time would be better spent paying attention to how much sex you’re having – or not – instead of being all up in my business.
The author of yesterday’s piece asked, “Is Pansexuality Obligatory?” and I say nope except, perhaps, as an intellectual exercise at best and if you can actually do it without any discrimination involving sex and gender, I’m happy for you. I just don’t think it’s a real thing when it comes to practical application but, then again, there are a lot of people who don’t think that bisexuality is real and, yeah, that’s been proven already… but methinks pansexuality hasn’t quite gotten to the proof of concept phase so much.
I would even go as far to say – and to point out – that because the word “gender” appears in a lot of definitions for bisexuality, it invalidates the notion of pansexuality as being “gender driven” unless it’s really a piece of social engineering that aims to eliminate the word “bisexuality” from our verbal lexicon, that pansexuality should replace bisexuality. But I don’t see how that works since, um, a lot of bisexuals are “purely” about someone’s sex – male or female – and all the nice parts involved… but getting with a transsexual or transgender? Not gonna happen because it’s still a matter of personal choice even if, again and intellectually, one knows they could if they wanted to. There are bi guys who just would not have sex with another bi guy who acts “like a girl…” and bi guys who “acts like a girl” who will not, for any reason, have sex with a guy who isn’t all alpha male macho.
And bi guys who say, “Fuck all of that dumb shit – show me your dick and let’s get busy!” and, yeah, even if the person with the dick they want also has a nice rack of titties.
Pansexuality, perhaps, seeks to redefine the “who” in W5H and, I think, unnecessarily so since who we have sex with has always been a thing and we good and damned well know that some folks aren’t that picky about who while some are rabidly picky about who gets to do the nasty with them.
Just my added $0.34 worth and because I’m still the guy who has the audacity to talk about this and in this way. Still not saying that having a pansexual mindset is a bad thing – still just questioning whether it’s as “real” of a thing like people are starting to insist that it is since the proof of concept hasn’t been established – but it does sound good on paper.
But what sex and sexuality things don’t sound good on paper? They all do… and now it’s still about practical application or, can you really do all that shit you’ve been thinking that sounds good? That remains to be seen… and if they can (and a lot of people actually can and do walk the walk), I’d say they were bisexual, not pansexual even if by definition given that, um, being male or female isn’t as “clear cut” as it once might have been.
I maintain – and because I’ve not seen any real evidence to the contrary – that even if you don’t see yourself as being male or female, or that you are genderless, you’re still either male or female even if you change your body – your DNA will tell the truth of this even if you change your body chemistry to fit your perception of self. So “getting away from the gender binary,” wow, that one still blows me away given what I know about that double helix thing but okay.
We should be equal opportunity fuckers and fuckees at all times and at every turn and opportunity. We aren’t. Social conditioning and engineering has always sought to direct our sexual urges in a particular direction – it tells us who we can have sex with, why we should, even how and what we should do because, hmm, it just wouldn’t do to have everyone just running around and screwing everyone else and just because there’s a biological imperative to do some screwing and to be screwed, huh?
To this end, even straight folks ignore this conditioning/engineering thing, don’t they? Gay folks do and bisexuals really mess shit up since they “don’t care” if the person they’re having sex with is male or female… and even if the person is only male or female inside their own head and their physical appearance says otherwise. We socially engineered what being sexually attracted means which tends to clash with the biology of attraction and to the point where many of us will believe what we see over what our instincts – our bodies – is telling us. Men are only supposed to be sexually attracted to biological women, right? Yet, that’s not totally and completely true and it never has been. Why? Um, because you can be sexually attracted to anyone you find yourself being surprisingly attracted to like that.
For now, pansexuality appears to be social engineering – the way you “should” be which, for now, does not match the reality of the way we are and can be about sex. Maybe it will… I just don’t think it’s all that relevant at this moment, not with what I know about people and sex.
And that’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it – and I still might be wrong.