Omnisexuality (sometimes called Pansexuality) is a term used to describe undiscriminating choice for sexual and\or romantic partners. Most people are familiar with the term "bisexuality", which includes both "homo" and "hetero" partners for sexual and\or romantic affairs. Pansexuality extends beyond bisexuality, to include the sexes that are usually referred to as "others", including -but not limited to- transsexuals (people who undergone a sex-change operation) and intersexes (people who don't fall in either male or female profiles). Omnisexuality even expands beyond pansexuality to include sexuality with non-humans.
Personally, I like to identify myself as omnisexual, which roughly means: "I'd fuck anything that has a hole I can put my dick in!" Okay, that was an overshoot of a simplification, but guess you got the idea.
Some might think that extending sexuality to non-humans would include "zoosexuality". Technically yes... But since I consider consent to be an important precondition to sex, which pretty much excludes animals of the list. The reason I extend non-human species on the list is because [in my futuristic fantasy] I would be open to have sex with intelligent alien species - [Okay, guess Star Trek messed me up in this part]. So, I consider myself open to relationships with any species that I can have a mind-to-mind chat with.
Sensual Side of Sexuality:
Sexuality is a primary carnal drive. Sex is generally considered as a source for pleasurable sensations. Since, the primary reason for engaging in sexual activity is pleasure, then it seems unreasonable to discriminate pleasure according to its source. That's to say, if two things provide exactly the same sensual experiences, then those experiences are equal regardless of their source.
Consider this simplest act of getting a blow job, that is, using the mouth for sexual stimulation. Since a male's and female's mouths provide roughly equivalent experiences, then if you close your eyes and someone (either male or female) gives you a blow job, the sensation is the same, and the pleasure is the same!
I remember a friend once telling me about a film where the camera starts rolling with really nice feet, moving up to show nice shaved tall legs, moving further up to show a really nice ass... At that point, as that friend describes started wanking his dick... The camera kept moving up until it was revealed that the person shown was a guy - not some hot chick. As that friend describes, it totally blew the moment! He then goes on to explain that he thought about the incident for a while and later on realized that, since that nice ass was indistinguishable from a hot chick's ass, that the marginal fact that its a guy's ass shouldn't stop him from enjoying that nice ass!! And I totally agree with him, it's exactly the point I am making.
Emotional Side of Sexuality:
In my personal understanding, sexuality represents acceptance. When you can accept someone then you would not mind getting naked around them, and allowing the exchange of pleasure. In this understanding, it seems to me, the more people you accept, the wider the sexual orientation would expand.
Mutual acceptance seems that most emotionally gratifying product of sexual activity.
In that light, I consider my hypothetical acceptance of the idea of having sex with an alien, as a symbolic acceptance of what might seem weired or "alien" to us as earthlings.
Conscious Choice of Sexual Orientation:
Opposed to the popular view that sexual orientation is determined during early stages and is immutable, I disagree and think that
It is known that most people have bisexual urges, but people later on focus their sexual orientation towards one of the sexes (usually the opposite sex). I don't really see why some people insist on limiting their sexual orientations to "hetero only" or "homo only"... It doesn't make perfect sense to me. Why make only 50% of people as potential sources of pleasure, when it is possible to have 100% of people as potential sources of pleasure?!
Obviously, our social constructs increase the tendency of people to pick one of the genders as potential sexual partners. These constructs usually defined stereotyped views of males, females, and the relationships between people of different genders. For example, the socially constructed views about the importance of sexuality between males and females drive most people to the opposite sex, while this social pressure might negatively affect others and drive them away from the opposite sex towards the same sex. In my opinion, in many cases [but not all] sexual orientation is an extension of gender stereotypes AND stereotyped gender roles
Edit: The last section was modified to resolve some ambious interpretations
Posts
34 comments:
I think it also extends to anything that has a rod being allowed to penetrate you as well ... Oh I hope you're having fun!
What exactly are you trying to achieve with this?
Well I never considered it from this point of view, but I think you have a point there. It kind of makes sense. But you have to keep in mind that it's not always the social effects that shape our sexual orientations. Most guys just won't have sex with other guys! It's simply not a turn-on. Most guys, however, would give anything to watch lesbians in action.
I understand what you say Nichola, and thats true. What some people don't understand is that it is possible that an omnisexual would not enjoy say, homosexuality, and thus not do that. But there is still a reason to call them omnisexual rather than heterosexuals.
Consider this simple example. A non-religious person who does not like pork, and so doesn't eat pork. And a religious person, who does not eat pork because it is forbidden in his religion.
That non-religious person would eat whatever tastes good to him, but pork isn't on that list. On the other hand, that religious person would avoid pork regardless of its taste.
Another example is a vegetarian who AFTER enjoying a meal, learns that it contains meat, and refuses to eat that meal ever again...
So, to make an analogy, omnisexuality is like saying: "I'd eat anything that tastes good." If you don't like pork, you don't eat it - as simple as that; But choosing a focused sexual orientation, is like choosing to become vegetarian, NOT because you don't like meat, but only because you made up your mind.
"But you have to keep in mind that it's not always the social effects that shape our sexual orientations." - Sexual orientation is usually dependent on two factors, the sensual appeal and the romantic appeal. Consider how some bisexuals declare that, they would sleep with males and females, but only have romantic relationships with women. Some might do the opposite. So, yes our interpersonal relationships would affect our sexuality.
But if someone decides whether they want to get involved with one gender and not the other, based on their experience with members of that gender... This kind of inferencing holds the assumption that sexual\romantic experience with all members of that gender is the same as those previous experiences. This assumption is a form of gender stereotyping!!
Qwaider, if someone enjoys penetrations then yeah, that would be included.
Wonderful post :P.
I guess that you have just neglected the fact that people are different.
You ave anwered your own question. Why would anyone choose to have potential source of pleasure with only 50% of people when he can have it 100%?
It is because people don't have realy choices to what really can be a source of pleasure for them.
Somtimes some people choose not have sex with who really can give them pleasure out of relgious reasons as you stated of someone choosing to be vegetarian because he has a principal, but there are people who sleep with only one certain sex just because they know who can give them pleasure.
Sex is not just about asses or dicks or boobs. It has much more psychological triggers than pysical ones.
If you idenitify yourself to be ominsexual (bisexua), it doesn't mean that everyone is like that. There are hereosexuals and homosexuals as well.
Yes, observer, I understand that each to his own, and that not all people get pleasure though the same means.
But as I tried to explain, I think for most people, sexual orientation is a conscious choice, rather than a subconscious one.
"there are people who sleep with only one certain sex just because they know who can give them pleasure" - If thats the case its fine, but I think most people resist their sexual urges rather than understand them and work upon them.
For example, imagine a heterosexual guy meets a transwoman [A man-at-birth who became a woman]... He gets to know that transwoman for quite a while and develops a romantic attachment to that transwoman. Later on, he learns that this "woman" he is attracted to was born as a guy. What would happen?! Most guys would break up in that case.
In such a scenario, it seems that the choice for attraction was preconditioned by the gender, not how well the two can get together!
There are cases that yes as you stated the source of pleasure can be a consious choice, but it isn't always the case.
The man who would be turned off that idea of the woman he has been sleeping with was born a man, can be explained by that he now percieves her with some manish attribute in her although she has nothing which is a turn off for him. He didn't make a consious decision to feel turned off by men because that is innate.
This gets back to my initial claim that sexual orientation is an extension of gender stereotyping, since this kind of reasoning assumes that people of the same gender share certain attributes.
Don't get me wrong, I am not judging sexual orientation, I am just stating the obvious!!
Ok reading it just seemed flawed, and wasn't gonna comment on it, BUT ....
sexual orientation is basically an extension of gender stereotypes formulated by the society.
how did u come to this conclusion ???? I must have missed the basis for that so you are saying this based on an androgynous experience of your friend ?
I stated the basis on which I reached that conclusion: It is based on my opinion, its not based on science or some concrete analysis.
I wrote: "In my opinion, sexual orientation is basically an extension of gender stereotypes formulated by the society."
In defense of my opinion, most of our views are socially constructed. Our feelings, like and dislikes, goals, aspirations are socially constructed.
Have you ever asked yourself why you used to go to school?! Why you go to work everyday?! Why you dress handsomely?! Why you support one political view but not the other?! Why you go online and comment on people's blogs?! Why you use electricity at home?! Why you speak the language(s) that you do?!
Isn't society that common thing that formulated all of that?!
hehe well true, ur examples are socially constructed and developed ....
but the counterargument is this ...
my IQ, my main charachteristics (eg.introvert) and Alot of other feature that constitute a big part of what i am are decided at birth with little influence from the enviroment.
So in my opinion, orientation would be closer to ... personal charecteristics than to a social construct.
as for society influencing what i do ... in a way, at an early age.
right now i prefer to call it dillusional free will.
I tend to agree with no_angel more on this one. Orientation is closer to personal characteristic rather than social construct.
The masculinity of a male isn't a false stereotype because most males are masculine in nature. The same applies onthe femininity of the female. Once can be attracted to masculinity or femininity or both and thus link it to males or females. Yes, some stereotyping is inflicted here, but it correct most of the times.
Not really, even being an introvert is something that is socially constructed. The way your parents raised you as well as your experience with others made you an introvert!!
But the stereotyped gender roles are constructed through the social views, and don't tell me that at least some part of the sexual orientation is not influenced by the stereotyped gender roles.
There is a two way correlation between the individual and the society... Society is made up of individuals, and thus individuals affect society... Still other individuals (say your parents, friends, siblings, sexual partners) do influence the individual. I find it hard to deny that other people influence my own decisions and views.
Observer, I didn't even argue about the truth value of gender stereotyping. All I am saying is that sexual orientation is an extension of gender stereotypes. Whether gender stereotypes is true or not is a whole different question.
I see, now I got what you were trying to say.
Now how much of our gender stereotype is formulated by society and how much of it is formulated by nature?
Just like any stereotype, it might apply to a large portion of people that subscribe to that subgroup, but not all of them.
Also, people are raised to follow the gender stereotypes. Consider a boy who likes to play with Barbie. His parents would bring him a car toy and teach him that he is expected to like that toy better! If a girl is tough, she is instantly reminded that if she keeps that behavior that no guy would ever marry her! If a guy puts make up, he'll instantly be scrutinized. If a girl doesn't put make up, she'll be criticized for not looking her best.
I don't think there is any physiological law that dictates which toy to prefer, or to put some make up or not, according to gender!
Examples are many, and the topic is not straightforward. I wouldn't say that my claim is completely true, but I think that if you actually consider how true that statement is, you'll be surprised by how much our social norms define our personalities, including -among others- our preferences and roles in life.
hmm i had to dig in to find this one hehe its a study by Arnold Buss and Robert Plomin
thats regarding a study about twins babies, identical and fraternal.
(reason i remembered that one b/c as babies there is not much of a social influence in the first few months)
so they found 3 major charecteristic of personality and one weaker one.
one of those is Sociability-detachment
Yeah thats in regard to the introvert being a nurture more than nature factor, which is highly contested :)
As for you general idea, now i understand what you were seeing regarding gender stereotyping ....
I dont argue with the fact that it does influence. what am objecting to is that you are suggestings that it stems from gender stereotyping "All I am saying is that sexual orientation is an extension of gender stereotypes. ".
while i think that it is originally there but gets tampered by society .... but what is displayed on the outside is not a perfect reflection of whats inside (which is what i hope we are discussing)
hmmm as for what toy a person prefers .... there might be a physiological law (am not going freud on ya here) but for example intelligence is hereditry, and part of it is spatial intelligence (dominant in males rather than females) that makes it normal that there are more boys playing with lego than girls :)
Let me clear one thing: I am not saying sexual orientation is all some kind of social prestige. But there are numerous occasions that this happen, where someone would avoid sexual and\or romantic activity just "because"!!
Consider these two examples:
1- The guy who meets a transwoman, develops feeling for her, then refuses her because she was born a male. This is a typical conscious choice for sexual orientation that has nothing to do with biological attraction, since that person has been able to develop feelings for the transwoman.
2- In one cartoon, a female character disguises herself a guy. Another heterosexual male characters announces: "That guy is raising conflicted feelings in me!". In that satirical scenario, it seems that that character is more like "biologically" heterosexual, since he was attracted to a girl disguised as a guy. If that character was homophobic, it would have denied itself the love of someone based on that it looks like a guy.
Have you ever asked yourself what would you react in each case?! And more importantly, why you would react in that way?!...
I have read around a little but, and it seems that Sex-positive feminists also happen to agree with me on this matter. I quote: "They see sexual orientation and gender as social constructs that are heavily influenced by society."
Maybe my view is a bit influenced by feminist ideas, maybe not... But as you can see, you can find people who advocate something and those who advocate against that thing. The topic of sexual orientation might not be so easy to quantify.
Devil's mind, while, there are some forms of roles are imposed to genders by society like what you said about toys for example, but there are some biological effect as well like how the man is larger in size than the woman in general, the muscles of the man being stronger, the hair body of the man. It all comes from nature that defines our gender roles.
Society has built of those basics.
I think the above mentioned two scenarios speak much of what I wanted to say, think about them honestly and tell me what you find... What you are saying is that there are certain characteristics shared by most people in a certain gender. Which is TRUE... I am not denying that. But, this argument is WAY missing the point!
Physiology and biology are factors, and I am not marginalizing that. But you cannot marginalize the social effect as well. There is a difference between NOT WANTING to sleep with someone, and REFUSING to sleep with someone. Sure not all people are attracted to people of all races\genders\personalities\..etc thats natural, and I am not denying it. I am talking about people who refuse romantic partners to meet arbitrary sexual orientation.
Since my stereotyping argument seems to be causing a huge misunderstanding, I will give you yet another example of what I mean... I don't want to go around in circles, but this example might help me clarify what I mean.
Consider a woman who declares: "I would never date a Jordanian man, because stereotyped Jordanian men never smile and are very boring... Besides they beat their wives!"
Now, that woman meets a guy who smiles all the time, is funny, and respect women and would never hit them. BUT after getting out with him, she finds that he is Jordanian, so she breaks up with him. Why is the "stereotyped version" of Jordanian men more important to that woman than that "specific" man IN FRONT OF HER!!
PS: No_Angel, I don't know what happened to your comment, this might be a glitch in blogger's service.
hehe ok. regarding ur question I think i would go with my instinct, and i trust it enough to lead me were i want. (i would be depressed and shocked if it didn't)
and no i didn't only mention the difference in gender, there are certain characteristics shared by everyone
its interesting how this post was something and most of the comments are on the last statement.
btw u reminded me with trainspotting, when that aggressive guy takes a hooker out (LOL)
the first 2 examples they would be rejected based on genitals (unless the first one was a hermaphrodite)
the last example is a better example
simply ur saying that individual traits tended to be ignored, which is true social (look how arabs see jews or vice versa) but when the difference is biologically differentiated it gets more complicated
thats all am saying
ok, i have few things to say,,
facts, babies are born with a specified gender. either a male or a female. but when do humans mature sexually? at the age of 12 or 13.
now infants know that they are boys and girls and even men and woman distinuish themselves through body physical construct.
but gender is not just a physical construct, it has a watermark, an inner watermark, for those who turn to gays and lesbians, they have certain physical build up as males or females but the inner watermark was socially deviated within the early stages (first 10 years), note, i do believe that being gay or lesbian could develop unconsciously but is a conscious choice..
my point, Sex is a physical urge. when you see it this way, it doesn't matter how you let it out.
but when it comes to attraction, i believe that the law of attraction is a necessarily for opposites. ya3ni, maybe you see homos, but these homos has one woman trapped inside. there is a polarity. this is how i see it.
feminity or masculinity reflects from inside out. it has nothing to do with the physical construct.
so if i am a woman and i see myself as a man, it will come to surface and i wont be conscious about it and i will be attracted to women.
for the guy who liked the trans woman, i guess he felt for the woman in her, if he can unshield the idea, i believe he can go further on with her.
Devil's Mind, I am not sure whether your last reply was to me or to no_angel, but from it I can see that I have misunderstood what you were talking about. You cleared things out here, and I do agree with what you said.
Thank you Arab Observer, I hope I didn't bore you with an endless argument :S , sexual orientation might not be an easy thing to discuss because of the sensitivity around it, and the numerous factors surrounding it that CANNOT be summed up in one area like "social", "biological", "personal choice", ...etc ,, many factors get involved to make up the final package.
Tala, your argument reminds me of an older post discussing gender identity.
In short, I would ask, how is a boy\girl supposed to feel?! if a boy likes to play with Barbie, does that make him a girl inside?! If a girl likes to watch and play football, does that male her a boy?!
Generally, this might be true for some cases of homosexuality. If a male feels like a woman, it would be understandable to get along with men. But I do NOT think this applies to ALL cases of homosexuality.
Let us consider transsexuals as examples of misplaced gender identities. Some transwomen [man-at-birth] sleep with guys... Which is compatible with your hypothesis. But some transwomen sleep with women!! Same thing applies for transmen [women-at-birth], some of them sleep with men, others with women. And sure enough, there are transsexuals who are bisexuals and pansexuals!
No_Angel, yes I agree.
يا ريت لو يتم الكتابة في العربية ، كثير من القراء وانا منهم بهمهم يتنوروا
وشكرا للمجهود الطيب
The above commenter said: [Translated]
Could you please use the Arabic language, other readers want to be enlightened. Thanks for the effort.
Sorry, the official language of this blog is the English language, since the English language is the most widely recognized language, and is understood in most countries of the world - including the Arab countries.
No! Ofcourse you didnt bore me, in the contrary I enjoy the read and the argument. It is always good to argue with you because you have a good logic unlike some others who frustrates me because they cant really think ;)
I modified the entry to clear out the misunderstandings that have caused much of the controversy here in the comments.
It is known that most people have bisexual urges, but people later on focus their sexual orientation towards one of the sexes (usually the opposite sex).
If you draw a line that goes from 100% gay to 100% straight. Different people will lie at different places on that line with most close to the middle (bisexual). Only the very few who are very much on the gay side of that line, identify as gay, and the rest of the people (mostly bisexuals) identify as straight. I bet many of those aren't even aware that they are bi.
I don't really see why some people insist on limiting their sexual orientations. Why make only 50% of people as potential sources of pleasure, when it is possible to have 100% of people as potential sources of pleasure?!
I'll answer your question from the point of view of a straight women who thinks it would be nice if she were bi.
Although I think that most people are bi, I think I'm as straight as one can get. It is probably due to my lack of sexual experience with women combined with the societal influence. But as a result I have an overwhelming preference to a man with a penis over a woman without a penis. The weight of a man on top of me and a man's moan work a whole lot better for me than a woman. Still, I get your point when you say "Thats to say, if two things provide exactly the same sensual experiences, then those experiences are equal regardless of their source." So chances are I would be aroused with the presence and the touch of a naked woman, just not to the same extent. I also wouldn't want to put my fingers in her, and definitely not oral sex.
Some might think that extending sexuality to non-humans would include "zoosexuality". Technically yes... But since I consider consent to be an important precondition to sex, which pretty much excludes animals of the list.
How do you feel about having sex with an animal on the receiving side? When your dog is humping you, the dog is happy and you have its consent.
I once read an internet councilor advising a woman to do it with her dog instead of sleeping with another man because her boyfriend is unavailable. I, for one, find it repulsive. But, again it is probably the society's influence on me. If dogs don't mind doing human's, why do human's mind doing dogs?
In conclusion, when anti-gays claim that homosexuality is a psychological issue, the accusation can be turned back at them. Maybe heterosexuals are the ones with the psychological issues. Or, instead humans can stop accusing and start accepting.
Opposed to the popular view that sexual orientation is determined during early stages and is immutable, I disagree and think that conscious choice plays an important [but NOT exclusive] role in sexual orientation.
I think you can make a conscious choice in being open to the idea of same-sex, and you can make a conscious choice in experimenting. But, your final preference is probably not a conscious choice.
As for gender stereotypes, most of the things that we define as feminine or as masculine is man made. For example, women wear make-up and dresses, while men wear pants. Well, if clothing is man-made, then the rule of who wears what is also man-made. And when a man likes to cross dress doesn't indicate whether the man is gay or straight. All it says is that he didn't go by those man-made rules and he felt like wearing a skirt.
Same goes to barbies, cars...etc. All these things are invented by humans. This is why I don't get transexuals. I get it if they simply just don't want to follow these rules and stereotypes, but I don't get it when they want so badly to follow the other sex's rules and stereotypes; and when they want to change the one organ that if they learn how to use will bring them some pleasure.
However, I do get that they have views that are different from mine, so they should do whatever works for them.
"How do you feel about having sex with an animal on the receiving side? When your dog is humping you, the dog is happy and you have its consent." - This would not appeal to me.
For me, consent should be positive and verbal. Thats to say, consent should be expressed in an intelligent manner. In the case of animals, you can assume they have given consent by simply taking a positive role in the act. But they cannot actually communicate their thoughts and feeling in a clear and precise manner, and for this reason, I am skeptical of this practice, and would generally avoid it.
There have been documented cases where people have had romantic relationships with their pets. I don't know about those, but I would not raise an animal as a pet... But apparently some people do think that it is possible to have a genuine bond with specie of lesser intelligence...
"This is why I don't get transexuals. I get it if they simply just don't want to follow these rules and stereotypes, but I don't get it when they want so badly to follow the other sex's rules and stereotypes;" - Actually, I also had the same thoughts and feelings towards transexuality. I have also made a post dissecting this point. [I guess I have already made many posts about many things :) ]
I'm omni sexual but I only sleep with women over eighteen although that's part of my kink
great
I think vibrators are a great way to learn about what feels good and how to orgasm.
Post a Comment