Pansexuality, a possible term for some nonexclusive CLs?

[InfinityChild]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality?wprov=sfla1

From article: "A literal dictionary definition of bisexuality, due to the prefix "bi-", is sexual or romantic attraction to two sexes (males and females), to two genders (men and women), or attraction to both people of the same gender and different genders.

Pansexuality, however, composed with the prefix "pan-", is the sexual attraction to a person of any sex or gender. Using these definitions, pansexuality is defined differently by explicitly including people who are intersex or outside the gender binary.

Volume 2 of Cavendish's Sex and Society states that "although the term's literal meaning can be interpreted as "attracted to everything", people who identify as pansexual do not usually include paraphilias, such as bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia, in their definition", and that they "stress that the term 'pansexuality' describes only consensual adult sexual behaviors." "

Them saying I'm not included makes me want to identify as it more lol

[jeffychubchaser29]

That's what I identify as and I'm a nonexclusive CL

[Harlan]

I reckon that the term "Pansexual" is now being described and used incorrectly, due to prejudice and censorship against paraphilias. In its current meaning, it is still the same bisexuality.

We know that bisexuals are attracted to both men and women, so they don't really care if they are biological men and women or transgender. The essence does not change.

Bisexuals also have different variations of attraction, it can be balanced to both sexes, unbalanced with a more pronounced preference of a certain sex, floating when the preferred sex periodically changes. However, they do not call themselves "Demisexual" or "Fluidsexual". All this is contained in one term "Bisexual".

By this simple logic, I consider the entire "non-binary" vocabulary can also be summarized by the single term "Bigender."

Pansexuality, as it was said, is really an attraction to everything - to men and women (biological and transgender), people of different ages (minors and old adults), other species.

Necrophilia is not an orientation, it is a fetish like sadomasochism

[Outis]

Pansexual makes sense, that would describe many ancient Greeks for example where sexuality wasn't really a thing, people were either sexual or they weren't and the partner didn't have to be a particular gender or age.

[Lennon72]

I find it interesting that a pansexual would not want to include minors in the definition as it was to my understanding that a pansexual really did not care if you were male, famales, trans, etc. because they are more interested in the person. And if it is only the person that hey are interested in, then why bitch about age? Of coarse, one has to keep within the boundaries of the law. But to dismiss it on the spot makes a mockery of the pansexual who condemns it.

[Outis]

I find it interesting that a pansexual would not want to include minors in the definition as it was to my understanding that a pansexual really did not care if you were male, famales, trans, etc. because they are more interested in the person. And if it is only the person that hey are interested in, then why bitch about age? Of coarse, one has to keep within the boundaries of the law. But to dismiss it on the spot makes a mockery of the pansexual who condemns it.

You are right but I think it highlights just how far society has moved away from free speech and free expression since I expect at least some pansexuals take this view to avoid their sexuality from being attacked. They might not fully believe it or even have an opinion on it, but if they were to accept pansexuality as truly without boundaries then they would find themselves in the same position as us. I recall reading about some prominent gay rights leaders expressing in the past a more inclusive view that included young boys, but I get the impression that was dropped to allow the gay rights movement to progress, possibly with the intention of returning later to include boys once the world had accepted gay rights. Of course no one went back to include boys, that would just put the gay rights movement back at risk, so boy lovers were left in the cold.

That's why I'm not interested or supportive of the LGBTQ movement because they are anti-map and I don't believe for a second that they would ever be supportive of map rights. If maps want to improve their position in the world then it's entirely up to maps to do it. There will be no saviors coming from the LGBTQ lobby.

[Harlan]

... I get the impression that was dropped to allow the gay rights movement to progress, possibly with the intention of returning later to include boys once the world had accepted gay rights. Of course no one went back to include boys, that would just put the gay rights movement back at risk, so boy lovers were left in the cold.

It is possible that not enough time has passed yet. I believe that sooner or later homosexuality will become commonplace and the line between adult and young gays will begin to blur. Combined with the growth of the MAP community, these two vectors will eventually meet again.

[Outis]

... I get the impression that was dropped to allow the gay rights movement to progress, possibly with the intention of returning later to include boys once the world had accepted gay rights. Of course no one went back to include boys, that would just put the gay rights movement back at risk, so boy lovers were left in the cold.

It is possible that not enough time has passed yet. I believe that sooner or later homosexuality will become commonplace and the line between adult and young gays will begin to blur. Combined with the growth of the MAP community, these two vectors will eventually meet again.

Hopefully you are right but I don't think you are. In my country, homosexuality is common, there is nothing taboo about it. People can be openly gay, there are gay bars and gay pride and I think everyone has at least one gay friend. But they all distance themselves away from maps and take real offence at any suggstion that homosexuality has any connection to maps.

Actually I think we are more likely to get support from people outside of the LGBTQ community. People within that community have won their rights and don't want to risk losing them, so they will throw maps under the bus at the first sign of any connection. But traditional heterosexuals have nothing like that to lose and it is those who had to move over the hurdle of accepting the rights of other sexualities. They are not as jaded, have less to lose and have proven they can make the leap.

[Lennon72]

That's why I'm not interested or supportive of the LGBTQ movement because they are anti-map and I don't believe for a second that they would ever be supportive of map rights. If maps want to improve their position in the world then it's entirely up to maps to do it. There will be no saviors coming from the LGBTQ lobby.

It is true that the LGBT community, generally speaking, is not supportive of MAPs. But some from withing the community are. I am one of them. So I would say that as long long as that is the case, then there is still hope.

[Lennon72]

Hopefully you are right but I don't think you are. In my country, homosexuality is common, there is nothing taboo about it. People can be openly gay, there are gay bars and gay pride and I think everyone has at least one gay friend. But they all distance themselves away from maps and take real offence at any suggstion that homosexuality has any connection to maps.

Sad but true. There are many in the gay community who feel that way. On the other hand, there many exclusive BLs out there who vehemently disagree with me when I mention that being an exclusive BL is still gay. But to me, males who like males are gay regardless of ones AOA. So it seems to me as if many MAPS try to distance themselves form the LGBT community as well. And you appear to be one of those who that. But could that possibly be just as bad?