As somewhat of a follow-up to Monday's post, the short Medium article "Life's Too Short Not to Be Pansexual" by Kathlyn Roberts rather brings the idea of mutual masturbation (or more) full circle.
The irony of all this is that, in an effort to remove the stigma and try to convince people we are simply "sexual beings," we've again placed a label.
Simply stated, we should be free - without any kind of retribution, without derision - to be in the relationship(s) of our choosing. As a birthday gift years ago, a friend treated me to Jim Bailey's performance of his Streisand impersonation. On the way home, he asked me about my "tastes in sex." What a subtle way to ask if I'm straight, gay, or bi.
My answer surprised him. "It's whomever I'm comfortable with and aroused by."
In my opinion, - if we must insist on labels - that's the true definition of pansexual.
6 comments:
I agree - I don't care for labels - if any - we are human with human desires and should be free to flow in any direction we please. I believe that is our right. I hope all is well, my Friend. Wishing you a deeeelicious day! Hugs, Licks, and Strokes, AOM
I think that pansexuality is defined as the sexual, emotional, romantic or spiritual attraction for others regardless of their biological sex, gender expression or sexual orientation.
Maybe the label of those who have either no label or who have all the labels at the same time.
Hugs and bisous my darlings Jean and Pat.
It would be nice if pansexual meant no labels, why do we need them? I often think of that when Pete Buttigieg, a US Presidential candidate, is often described as gay, when no one else’s sexual orientation is even mentioned. Hugs and bisous.
Bingo. We are sexual.
@ Jean - I agree 100% At this point, Pete's my choice. I doubt he'll make it because of the labeling.
Sorry, bt I'm 100% gay
Post a Comment