The Human Core: Pansexuality, Polyamory, and Relationship Anarchy

There are three aspects of the human experience that exemplify it's core values: Love, sexuality, and relationships. In this post, I will address those most essential elements of the human experience.

Let's start with a few quick definitions before we delve into the subject.

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). I have expressed my admiration for pansexuality in previous posts, like this one.

It is worth noting that pansexuals don't have to actually be attracted to that full spectrum. A pansexual might be someone who is in fact heterosexual, but refuses to identify with that label because they would not repress any attractions towards someone from the same sex (if it happened), although they realistically know that they may never feel such an attraction. The same logic also applies to homosexuals who may or may not experience heterosexual urges.

Relationship anarchy is the practice of forming relationships that are not bound by set rules. Relationship anarchy has strong connections with open relationships, although being distinct from open relationships. It differs from other relationship models by postulating that there need not be a formal distinction between different types of relationships. Relationship anarchists look at each relationship (romantic or otherwise) individually, as opposed to categorizing them according to societal norms such as 'just friends', 'in a relationship', 'in an open relationship', etc.

Polyamory is the belief that it is possible to love more than one person at the same time. I have addressed this topic on multiple occasions in this blog. What follows are three posts that discuss the concept of polyamory:
- Can You Love More Than One Person At The Same Time?
- Polyamory: The Ethical Problems of Monogamy
- Dissecting The Concept of Monogamy


The questions that are at the core of this post are: In what ways are those three concepts connected? What are the common values that those perspectives share? And why I believe that those three concepts work beautifully well together that there is a good chance that someone who subscribes to one is likely to subscribe to the others as well?


Fluidity:
The first word that comes to mind to describe those three positions is fluidity! I believe that the common values go much deeper than that, but this is a good place to start. Pansexuality is about being fluid about your sexual preferences. A pansexual person is one who is not willing to limit his or her sexual preferences in a normative manner. This can to be contrasted with self-identified heterosexuals, who may have some homosexual urges, but choose to repress those urges in order to avoid a situation where they might have to question their sexual orientation. A pansexual would give themselves permission to act on their desire without feeling the need to question their attraction.

In a similar fashion, a relationship anarchist would not 'define' and consequently constrain their relationships with other people. They prefer to keep their relationships fluid, and hence lack the need to constrain themselves or others through rules, but even more importantly, roles!

And finally, let's address polyamory. Monogamy in this context can be seen as a limiting belief, that may cause a person to repress an emotional connection that is developing with another person, due to the fact that they believe that loving more than one person at the same time is somehow not 'real love'!! In the same way that a heterosexual might ignore feeling of attraction to someone of the same gender based on normative considerations, a monogamist might ignore an evolving emotional bond based on normative considerations of a similar nature.


Genuine Connectedness and Freedom of Expression:
In a very similar manner of understanding, those three concepts allow a person have have the freedom to express themselves, and allow others to express themselves openly and honestly. The outcome of an atmosphere of freedom is genuineness.

Since love, sexuality, and relationships are the most profound aspects of the human experience, the expression of those elements expresses the fundamental values of the personal identity. Our inner most values as humans are expressed through love, sex, and relationships. Any act that aims to censor or inhibit the free expression of those values hides away an aspect of our personal identify. The people we enter relationships with are a mirror to our inner most needs, desires, and values.

In order to maximize the genuineness of the interpersonal bonds with our fellow human beings, we need to maximize their ability to express their inner most selves genuinely without manipulation or censorship.

Pansexuality, polyamory, and relationship anarchy are effective tools to guarantee that yourself and others are free to express themselves in the most genuine manner...


Avoiding Self-Limiting Beliefs:
As has been explained in the previous section, adopting the social norms that create normative barriers to self-expression are self-limiting beliefs, that encourage the person holding those beliefs to not fully explore their inner-selves. It shuts down routes that may lead to experiencing life without any barriers.

However, it is my personal belief that the most gratifying relationships are with those who both are willing to be open and honest, and also have done the necessary self-reflection to actually know themselves deeply enough. After all, you cannot share your values if you have not done what is necessary to discover those values.


Acceptance and Celebrating Our Humanity:
Love, sex, and relationships are momentous experiences. Without them life would be dull, and frankly meaningless. When we experience love we feel joy. When we experience sex we feel joy. And when we have genuine relationships we feel joy. Any of those experiences calls for a celebration. It is a celebration that expresses our humanity. Humans are social creatures, and all those experiences exemplify the best aspects of our social selves.

Pansexuality, polyamory, and relationship anarchy demonstrates an acceptance and receptiveness to all those joys of life. It allows us to experience life to its fullest potential without having to feel guilt, shame, or internal conflict while expressing our values.

I shall quote from an article that expresses such concerns quite eloquently:

"[Monogamy] makes a person feel guilty about having a feeling that I consider to be one of the most important feelings of all. Our ability to connect with other people, to admire other people for their greatness, to be attracted to what we value (spiritually and physically), the ability to love – is probably our most vital characteristic in this life. Monogamy takes a somewhat controversial stance towards it – this property is considered wonderful in a person if he is single, but once he already has one romantic relationship, this very same property is labeled as extremely immoral and wrong. [...] So, basically, if you're in a monogamous relationship, and there's this other person that you realize is absolutely awesome, then you should feel somewhat guilty. You should reject this realization." (source)

And within this understanding, the goal is to celebrate our core human values without guilt or repression. To give ourselves and those we are in a relationship with the means to experience the joys of life.

Polyamory: The Ethical Problems of Monogamy

I have always had ethical problems with closed relationships and monogamy. I regard love as great and sacred, and for anything to contradict that seems unethical to me. This is because our capacity for love is the source of ethics and morality, and to label love as wrong and immoral is such a contradiction! I was always amazed by the common belief that monogamy somehow is an ideal of love. This belief always seemed problematic, and in reality I believe that monogamy is anti-love and anti-ethical rather than an ideal.

The question that is crucial here is: How can you deny love in the name of love?! How can you state that love is the reason that love is wrong?!

I have found a very interesting post about the ethical dilemma of monogamy that states my view on the topic in a quite eloquent manner. The following is an excerpt from that post:

For most poly people out there, there's really nothing wrong with monogamy. Both mono and poly are valid relationship models, and everyone chooses the one which best fits them. I really wish I could wholeheartedly agree with this... however, I must admit that monogamy clashes with my ethics. And here's why:

It makes a person feel guilty about having a feeling that I consider to be one of the most important feelings of all. Our ability to connect with other people, to admire other people for their greatness, to be attracted to what we value (spiritually and physically), the ability to love – is probably our most vital characteristic in this life. Monogamy takes a somewhat controversial stance towards it – this property is considered wonderful in a person if he is single, but once he already has one romantic relationship, this very same property is labeled as extremely immoral and wrong. Well, newsflash, everyone: the ability to fall in love does not miraculously disappear when one finds a partner! OK, so maybe for some people it does. Maybe. For most of us, it does not; and polyamory finds this wonderful. In monogamy, however, it is usually considered very wrong to even be attracted to someone else – even if you never act upon these feelings. So, basically, if you're in a monogamous relationship, and there's this other person that you realize is absolutely awesome, then you should feel somewhat guilty. You should reject this realization.

And this is what ticks me off. For me, it's all very simple, really: Love is great. Sex is great. If a doctrine states that love and sex between two consenting adults is immoral, then that doctrine is wrong.

source: What's Wrong with Monogamy

Asexual Perspectives: Discovering Asexuality

A very interesting article titled, "How Discovering My Asexuality Set Me Free".

How Discovering My Asexuality Set Me Free

I was 21 when I found out I was asexual, and it changed everything in my life – my perception of myself, my expectations for the future, my understanding of the world. In a way, it more than changed my life; nothing was ever the same after that discovery, and I often say that a new life started for me then – that the person I became once I started identifying as asexual and seeing the world through new eyes was so different from the one I had been until then that it could not be the same person at all. It was a new me – someone with a new view of the world, different hopes, and far more possibilities.

I do not believe that I was born asexual – I do not believe that our sexual orientation (or our romantic orientation, or most of our other preferences for that matter) are already set at birth. I am not a big fan of the “it's all genetic” theories. I strongly believe that our environment, and the various things we experience as we grow up and later as we grow older, are what makes us who we are, and I think I can pinpoint some of the things that made me asexual, or at least some symptoms of that change taking place, back when I was about nine or ten years old. No, it was nothing awful – I was not sexually abused, I was not exposed to sexually explicit material, I was not brought up in fear of sex. But many little things happened and combined themselves in that way and I became asexual. I have never regretted it – I may not have been born asexual, but there are many elements of my personality that make this orientation especially appropriate and, indeed, probably the most suitable for me. Maybe, in fact, these elements did contribute to making me asexual. In truth, I do not care much about how it happened; I just think about it sometimes because I want to understand such things. But I am certainly glad it happened, and even more glad that I eventually found out about it; in fact, the only negative thing about my asexuality is that for so long I was not aware of it, and that if I had not become aware of it I would certainly have been very unhappy without ever understanding why or what I could do to change that.

Before I discovered that asexuality existed, I never suspected that I was different in that way (there were other ways I knew I was different from other people, though). When I thought about sex, it was as something that would happen to me someday – I would meet the right person (at the time I thought it would be a guy), fall in love with him, and we would “make love” and it would be wonderful, like in the romance novels I had read. I never asked myself if I really wanted this; I did not know it was possible not to want it. I never asked myself if having sex would really be so wonderful, when I felt nauseous and deeply uncomfortable whenever I read more factual and realistic (but not necessarily detailed) descriptions of sex, like in biology class when we talked about human reproduction, or the couple of times I looked up sex education websites. I did not think it was possible not to want sex, so it had to mean that this discomfort would pass when I met the right person.

When I discovered that asexuality existed, I did not think it might apply to me – it was too “special” an orientation, too rare, and I was not really aware that I was not interested in sex anyway (since I expected I would only be interested with the right guy). But when I eventually (for other reasons) had to question my orientation, asexuality appeared the only possible answer – and when I decided that it had to be the right one, I felt relieved. I had never felt pressured before, but now I was liberated; I had never thought that I might not want to have sex, but suddenly I was happy to know that indeed I did not have to – and that I probably would not.

Becoming aware of my asexuality allowed me to understand that I should not take anything for granted about myself or the world. I suddenly understood that I had choices where before I had always believed I had none – that maybe I did not truly feel or want things that were supposed to be experienced and desired by everyone – and I began questioning many aspects of my life that I had never thought much about before. This led me to realize that it was possible to love people deeply without being “in love” with them, to want to be close to them without this closeness being necessarily achieved by dating them, and to have fantasies but not actually want them to become true. It allowed me to understand what I truly wanted my life to be like.

Now, three years later, I think that discovering I was asexual is probably the best thing that ever happened to me. I do not think very often about what this orientation describes – my lack of interest in sex – but I am grateful every day for the many other things my awareness of it has brought me – all the choices I discovered I could make, all the new ways I discovered I could relate to other people and love them, all the possible futures that I now see open before me. Because I know I do not conform to the one expectation that is so deeply rooted in society that it is not even really formulated anymore and that most people cannot believe exceptions are possible (“everyone is interested in sex, or if they are not, then it is because something bad happened to them and they certainly want to be fixed”), I find it easy not to conform to social expectations in other ways – like preferring to be alone or not being interested in a romantic relationship. Knowing I am asexual has given me the possibility to discover who I really am and the strength to be who I want to be.

source: The Asexual Visibility and Education Network

Could Love Be a Sexual Orientation?

During some of my curious thoughts, I stumbled across what might be a mysterious question. I think that some people might be confused by the question to the point of dismissing the question as meaningless. However, it is a question that I personally find legitimate.

Could love be a sexual orientation? To elaborate, regularly people love a subset of those who they are sexually attracted to. For example, a straight man would find it difficult to fall in love with another man, simply because they are not sexually attracted to men. Same logic applies to all monosexual people (ie. heterosexual/homosexual). In this case, we find that sexual attraction or orientation is independent of love. On the other hand, love seems to be conditioned and controlled by sexual orientation. Simply put, sexual orientation leads and love follows.

The question is: Is this something that is definite for all human beings?! Is conceivable that at least for some people love leads and sexual attraction/orientation follows?!

Actually, my question is far more complicated than that, but because I cannot put words to explain my thoughts I'll leave it at this; Maybe I'll elaborate when I sort out my thoughts on the topic. The very thought of this question caused me lots of confusion!!

Just to avoid any possible confusion, this post does not address bisexuality. For the case of bisexual people, they have a sexual attraction to both sexes, which enables them to love people of both sexes. However, for the purposes of this post -and as far as I understand bisexuality- love is still in a very real sense conditioned by sexual orientation in that case.

Update: Looking around the internet, I found the type of sexuality that mostly resembles what I had in mind when I made this post. It is called Demisexuality. It does not exactly reflect my idea, but it's very similar in many aspects.

Demisexuality is considered to fall under the general category of asexuality. Demisexuals don't feel sexual attraction to people of either sex, until they form a strong emotional connection with them. However, what I have in mind generally falls under sexuality, rather than asexuality. However, the turn-ons and turn-offs are more controlled by personality cues, rather than physical appearance cues.

Omnisexuality: The Unrestrained Sexual Orientation

Introduction and Basic Definition:
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 sexual orientation is a choice conscious choice plays an important [but NOT exclusive] role in sexual orientation. I think that anyone would naturally attain gratification from any sexual experience, and that the choice of limiting the sources of sexual gratification is a product of a psychological process biological AND psychological factors on both conscious and subconscious levels, as well as prenatal experiences.

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 formulated by the society which are strongly reinforced by the society.

Edit: The last section was modified to resolve some ambious interpretations

Perfect Valentine's Gift

Disclaimer: Some links include sexually explicit content

Matchbox 20 in "Could I be you":

And I was wondering
Could I just be you tonight (Full lyrics)

On Valentine's Day boys and girls are looking for the perfect gift to give their loved ones. A perfect Valentine's gift should be able to demonstrate the love between the couple and increase their intimacy.

It is understood that many couples fantasize of walking in one another's shoes. Such experience would give intimacy its maximum boost. With that in mind, I have thought of the perfect Valentine's gift to get your loved one: A strap-on dildo.

On this special occasion, you can share with your loved one intimate moments where each one of you walks in the other's shoes - Swapping of souls you may say! For a unique life experience, girls and boys can swap their roles and see life in the eyes of the other person. If you are not sure how to use this unique tool, check this demonstration of the tool being used in action.

What Constitutes Prostitution?

Most people would roughly define prostitution as "selling the body". It is generally viewed as objectionable to make a sex-for-money kind of deal. The question that arises, why can't that deal be view as any other deal. The thing is: If we consider "selling our body" to be ethically wrong, then ALL work is ethically wrong.

As some might notice, we lend our bodies everyday in way that are viewed as "acceptable". Working in general implies that we use our body functions to produce a service or a product in exchange for money or an equivalent service or product. Consider a construction worker, he is using his physical strength and muscles to serve a building. A receptionist is using their physical existence to serve customers. A dentist uses his hands to fix teeth, and an engineer uses his mind and hands to come up with designs. So whats different when a person uses his physical form and genitalia to please?! It is not intrinsically different than commodifying any other part that an employer might make use of.

If we consider a more basic view, (considering Hedonism) we find that "pleasure" is the only service of real value. At the end of the day, every product sold or service offered is finally converted into a comfort commodity. Money is of no value at all if it cannot be converted into pleasurable items. So we can say, prostitution provides a service of usable value, something that will not undergo further transformations. A property that doesn't apply to many services offered on the market!

If we look at things from a more abstract level, we can see that many sex-for-a-service instances occur without being deemed objectionable. What about sex-for-love? Why is sex-for-love generally viewed as less problematic? Why is it that two "love-birds" making out viewed less objectionable than making out for the money?!

Don't you think "monogamy" is a kind of prostitution?! Isn't preserving the genitalia for "one true love" a type of accommodating one's body?! Some people suggest that prostitution makes people see others as commodities, doesn't monogamy imply that consequence?!

What about a wife that refuses to have sex with her husband because, say, he has been neglecting her. Isn't that a kind of prostitution? Doesn't that kind of behavior imply a sex-for-attention kind of deal?!

At the end of the day, prostitution is one of the oldest professions known to mankind; If we consider respect for the elders, then prostitution deserves just that!!

PS: Partly inspired by this entry
PS: Check this funny cartoon loosely related to the topic [Thanks No Angel]

Intellectual Digital Stripper

Alys (EGirl): Do u mind if i take off my skirt?
Player: No, not yet. First tell me why you chose to do this job!
Alys (EGirl): Fair enough. Sometimes people wonder why i think its alright to take my clothes off in front of others. Some call me immoral, others a slut. To be forthright, i think its funny that sexuality is so shunned in almost every society and culture.
I think that in being open in my own sexuality, i am helping to bring sexuality out into the open in society, hopefully one day it will no longer be shunned, and seen for what it is: a natural and essential part of life.

This excerpt was ripped off an "interactive 3D sex game" called EGirl. The game is actually lame, but i admired the digital stripper's attitude! Maybe we need more people like her....

I had previously posted a closely related excerpt:
Check it here

Satanic Sex Philosophy

In a previous post i have introduced the band Rockbitch and provided download links to one of their live performances: Bitchcraft.

The following is an extracted quotation of a conversation between one reporter and the members of Rockbitch band found on that video:

Reporter: You guys are extreme, you have kinda pushed the boundaries as far as u can bloody push it!
All: NOO!!
Reporter: You havent?
Vocalist: No we havent. you know, sexuality is so eclectic, its a rainbow of experiences. we have hardly taped into the kinds of things that women like.
Performer: And positions.
Reporter: What happens when say, just two people in a bedroom... is that still exciting? or is it just like.....
Vocalist: No, you dont do that babe... thats boring... any sex between just two people should be illegal... it should be a legal responibility for everybody to expand their horizons...
(kidding and light gestures)
Vocalist: We dont profess that everybody in the world would find all the different things we do appropriate for their sexuality, but if you are able to have an open mind about a fist fucking or something else extremely extreme, then you will have an open mind about somebody else's politics, their sexual politics, or the color of their skin. if you have an open mind about sex, and can look at what we do, and be happy and say "ohh yeah!", this makes the world a better, happier, and healthier place.

Amen to that!