Humansexual?

[Foxy Basket]

This is for all you guys out there who search for terms to define yourselves by, other than "chaser" or "admirer" or whatever. How about this?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...rm=humansexual

humansexual: 1) As a positive adjective, a humansexual is identical to a pansexual, wherein another person's gender is irrelevant in regards to having an affinity for them. A humansexual is above all else attracted to humans as human beings.

1) My friend says she doesn't fall in love with a man or woman but the person's soul.

I'm not a big fan of categories in general, but I recognize their significance; I thought this one was the best I've seen yet, because it can be used to describe just about anyone.

Thoughts?

[Howard1959]

Thanks

Well
Well

That just pegged me,Also you new pics look great.

Still on the fence but starting to lean ahead

[toban]

Initially, and without a lot of thought, I'd say it has a lot of merit

but in my opinion it will require require some serious discussion so as to forecast the ramifications which may arise from it's use. It would be preferrable in use though as opposed to the use of pansexual, at least IMHO.

But since it does get away from some of the the present categorization issues between sexual groups, i.e. gay, lesbian, transgender bi-sexual etc., my feeling is that society will not be too willing to give up those names but simply begin to add sub groups to it, for the sake of separating and retaining those groups anyway?

Changing the name will not really do much to change peoples attitudes to the practices.

This is for all you guys out there who search for terms to define yourselves by, other than "chaser" or "admirer" or whatever. How about this?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...rm=humansexual

I'm not a big fan of categories in general, but I recognize their significance; I thought this one was the best I've seen yet, because it can be used to describe just about anyone.

Thoughts?

[Foxy Basket]

but in my opinion it will require require some serious discussion so as to forecast the ramifications which may arise from it's use. It would be preferrable in use though as opposed to the use of pansexual, at least IMHO.

But since it does get away from some of the the present categorization issues between sexual groups, i.e. gay, lesbian, transgender bi-sexual etc., my feeling is that society will not be too willing to give up those names but simply begin to add sub groups to it, for the sake of separating and retaining those groups anyway?

Changing the name will not really do much to change peoples attitudes to the practices.

The reason I like this is because it's self-explanatory, and much more inclusive. "Pansexual" needs to be explained, and means you potentially like any and all sexual practices, but if someone says that they're "humansexual" you automatically understand that they simply like human beings.

Regardless of the type of person you're attracted to, you can be a humansexual without claiming to be interested in everyone. A man who's only interested in feminine people can be humansexual; it doesn't mean he's also attracted to men, but simply to people with certain attributes. But it brings the "human" aspect to the forefront.

All other sexualities demand that you identify people according to gender; first, you have to identify your own gender, then the gender of your particular choice of partner. "Humansexual" eliminates the need to identify yourself, or your partner, as anything other than a person. The details aren't overly important.

After all, the best way to view trans people is simply as people, as human beings; I think this term can be incorporated into anyone's sexual identity without taking anything away from their tastes. Above all else, it reinforces that we're all people, searching for other people to spend our time with; it's so simple that it actually makes sense.

As a writer and linguist, I just really like how this conveys the "human-first" concept in a simple and easy-to-understand way. I love human beings, not genders, bodies or genitals; what better word to describe that love than "humansexual?"

Just my two cents; I only wish I had discovered the term before my speech last weekend!

[toban]

Certainly, for those involved in the various aspects of sexual interrelations that are beyond the stereotypical M/F I can agree that this "new" term can be useful. What I was suggesting before though was that e.g. the redneck will certainly be forced to add a "tag" to humansexual to make certain that his displeasure with any such a relationship is openly demonstrated.

For reasons of this kind I can not see how this new term will satisfy the obnoxious redneck, or the religious fanatics for they will still have no time say, for any male who dare to enjoys any kind of relationship with another male, a mixed gender group or a M-F transgender or likewise females who step beyond the stereotypical.

Yes, I can see the use of "humansexual" as an all-encompassing term but I don't think it is a term capable of ever displacing more commonly used terminology.

So now, there is my second 2cent addition. (I am up to four cents now)

[Foxy Basket]

The best part

Certainly, for those involved in the various aspects of sexual interrelations that are beyond the stereotypical M/F I can agree that this "new" term can be useful. What I was suggesting before though was that e.g. the redneck will certainly be forced to add a "tag" to humansexual to make certain that his displeasure with any such a relationship is openly demonstrated.

For reasons of this kind I can not see how this new term will satisfy the obnoxious redneck, or the religious fanatics for they will still have no time say, for any male who dare to enjoys any kind of relationship with another male, a mixed gender group or a M-F transgender or likewise females who step beyond the stereotypical.

Yes, I can see the use of "humansexual" as an all-encompassing term but I don't think it is a term capable of ever displacing more commonly used terminology.

So now, there is my second 2cent addition. (I am up to cents now)

I think the part I like best is that it shows how silly the current terms really are. It's simultaneously an all-encompassing term, as well as a term that subverts the legitimacy of the current lingo we use to assign sexual tastes.

The common redneck might not use it, but this term is not meant for the simple-minded to use as their own; it's merely a simple term that they can understand (whether they accept it or not). His/her insistence on traditional categories will look foolish in the face of new, enlightened ways to determine sexuality.

Or not. It's hard to tell what them crazy rednecks will do when faced with something strange and uncomfortable. All I know is that I like the term better than "pansexual" and for those worried about their sexuality, this removes that constant need to squeeze yourself into a category that just doesn't fit.

When the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" were created (around 1869 for homosexual, and about two years later for heterosexual) trans people quite literally didn't exist as we know them today. The term didn't exist, the medical technology didn't exist, and there hadn't been any cases of people who had actually crossed the gender divide, hormonally and surgically. So how does it make sense to incorporate a new "type" of person into a sexual binary that didn't even account for our existence?

I'm rambling now, but there's a cause behind it - new ideas require new words to describe them. We've had no problem incorporating words like internet, sex work, and transgender into our general lexicon; maybe it's time for humansexual to join the ranks.

Or not. That's more up to the rest of you than it is to me; use whatever words you like best, but if this one fits, then enjoy it!

[toban]

I think the part I like best is that it shows how silly the current terms really are. It's simultaneously an all-encompassing term, as well as a term that subverts the legitimacy of the current lingo we use to assign sexual tastes.

I can see that, with no problem. In fact in a poll a while back where we were asked to define ourselves I could not find any of the terms submitted for our choice that were identifiable with myself. I claimed at that time that I was simply, "different". So then, knowing this new term now, I could have called myself humansexual.

The common redneck might not use it, but this term is not meant for the simple-minded to use as their own; it's merely a simple term that they can understand (whether they accept it or not). His/her insistence on traditional categories will look foolish in the face of new, enlightened ways to determine sexuality.

Or not. It's hard to tell what them crazy rednecks will do when faced with something strange and uncomfortable. All I know is that I like the term better than "pansexual" and for those worried about their sexuality, this removes that constant need to squeeze yourself into a category that just doesn't fit.

I agree wholeheartedly! To me, pansexual brings with it connotations of far too many possible situations which I am certain I could never identify with. Never!

When the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" were created (around 1869 for homosexual, and about two years later for heterosexual) trans people quite literally didn't exist as we know them today. The term didn't exist, the medical technology didn't exist, and there hadn't been any cases of people who had actually crossed the gender divide, hormonally and surgically. So how does it make sense to incorporate a new "type" of person into a sexual binary that didn't even account for our existence?

I'm rambling now, but there's a cause behind it - new ideas require new words to describe them. We've had no problem incorporating words like internet, sex work, and transgender into our general lexicon; maybe it's time for humansexual to join the ranks.

Or not. That's more up to the rest of you than it is to me; use whatever words you like best, but if this one fits, then enjoy it!

I find the term itself rather awkward but I can agree on the intent, most certainly. Did a check via my old Thesaurus looking for an alternative to "human" and the only one that seemed to portray the same intent was "individual" but that is even more cumbersome to use than human - how about then using "indisexual"? That would translate to an interest in the individual or person, which I think is what you are hoping to attain here.

Anyway now I am up tp 6 cents. I wish my keyboard had a cent symbol.

[LadyMissKier]

All I know is that I like the term better than "pansexual"

Makes me think of having a fetish for kitchen utensils.

I think the term "humansexual" is a great term for love.
But I prefer "Bisexual" when referring to physical attraction or "lust". Seems more scientific/descript.

-K.

[texasts]

there shouldn't be labels at all, i have had many ts and gg GF's and who a gorgeous person is has nothing to do with the genetalia that is under thier pantie, or indeed boxers for f2m transgendered.

i work equally well with both ts and gg's BOTH ARE WOMEN AND BOTH GET EQUAL LOVE DEVOTION AND AMAZING ORAL SKILLS FROM ME.

If im attracted to you, then i'm attracted to you period,....i will admit i may be a bit shallow in the looks department, and i also require personality for a fit....so im pickt that way,...but whats below is never a problem

[kristopin]

get back

i have to get back to you on this one as i have some research to do with in the buddhists beliefs and how they perceive sexuality along with spirituality.

however it i thought perhaps we could sinply use the english language

transsexualist

i am a transexualist.
he is a transexualist.
the transexualist seems to understand.
i am sorry but i have to inform you all i am a transexualist.
my dad is a transexualist.

the next question is how would we get this used as an accepted term? do we all start to simply use it? it is a bit of a long term but seems to work.

labels are so boring. you know that for us to truly be honest with each other then we have to have some connecton with the other persons inner thoughts. we have to be able to open ourselves up a little and connect at a different level other than sex. when we open up we are vulnerable but honest. i have said it before and i agree with you that i prefer to know a bit about the person i am going to share some intimate time with.

[cobbler]

I love the way language is a living organism which adapts to changing societal mores. Not long ago the term huMAN was derided as backhandedly male in intent and dismissive of the "herstory" of the world. Fair enough, so they came up with "bipedal" to describe the species. This of course led to loud cries of bias from the chimp camp. Humansexual, bisexual, bipedalsexual(sorry coco the chimp), pansexual, trisexual, transexual even asexual all describe the same concept in different ways. That is both the joy and potential hazard of language. The redneck fringe (yes, it is a fringe group, not the norm in spite of what you might see on fox) will always think the worst of anything "different". These people use the term "liberal" as an insult. To them social justice is a notion to be fought and beaten down along with anything else which challenges them to actually think in terms of a community of individuals as opposed to individual communities.

[Howard1959]

Cents

Love ya

I think the part I like best is that it shows how silly the current terms really are. It's simultaneously an all-encompassing term, as well as a term that subverts the legitimacy of the current lingo we use to assign sexual tastes.

The common redneck might not use it, but this term is not meant for the simple-minded to use as their own; it's merely a simple term that they can understand (whether they accept it or not). His/her insistence on traditional categories will look foolish in the face of new, enlightened ways to determine sexuality.

Or not. It's hard to tell what them crazy rednecks will do when faced with something strange and uncomfortable. All I know is that I like the term better than "pansexual" and for those worried about their sexuality, this removes that constant need to squeeze yourself into a category that just doesn't fit.

When the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" were created (around 1869 for homosexual, and about two years later for heterosexual) trans people quite literally didn't exist as we know them today. The term didn't exist, the medical technology didn't exist, and there hadn't been any cases of people who had actually crossed the gender divide, hormonally and surgically. So how does it make sense to incorporate a new "type" of person into a sexual binary that didn't even account for our existence?

I'm rambling now, but there's a cause behind it - new ideas require new words to describe them. We've had no problem incorporating words like internet, sex work, and transgender into our general lexicon; maybe it's time for humansexual to join the ranks.

Or not. That's more up to the rest of you than it is to me; use whatever words you like best, but if this one fits, then enjoy it!

[kristopin]

Nikki, info for you.

'The story of Tara's origin, according to the Tara Tantra, recounts that aeons ago she was born as a king's daughter. A spiritual and compassionate princess, she regularly gave offerings and prayers to the ordained monks and nuns. She thus developed great merit, and the monks told her that, because of her spiritual attainments, they would pray that she be reborn as a man and spread Buddhist teachings. She responded that there was no male and no female, that nothing existed in reality, and that she wished to remain in female form to serve other beings until everyone reached enlightenment, hence implying the shortfall in the monk's knowledge in presuming only male preachers for the Buddhist religion. Thus Tara might be considered one of the earliest feminists.'


who new?

[Foxy Basket]

however it i thought perhaps we could sinply use the english language

transsexualist

I'm sorry, but I like this term least of all. You're differentiating transsexuals from others; the point of "humansexual" was to negate this difference entirely. Besides, a lot of the people that others label "transsexual" don't exactly like the term itself; I only use it because it's the easiest term for other people to understand.

Also, calling yourself a transsexualist could extend to FTM's as well; you can't assume that every self-described transsexualist likes only those of the "opposite gender" (which, as a concept, doesn't even make sense of trans identities in the first place).

I'm trying to stress the fact that we're people first, and suggested a category that potentially includes anyone without dividing us further; transsexualist does the exact opposite, and pigeonholes both of us in such inaccurate ways. And it doesn't include guys who like all women, trans or otherwise.

As for your other post, I can't comprehend Eastern philosophies until I've had my second cup of coffee, so I'll have to get back to you on that one; but you might find the idea of the syzygy (the philosophical concept, as well as the Jungian term) particularly interesting.

[kristopin]

gender

I'm sorry, but I like this term least of all. You're differentiating transsexuals from others; the point of "humansexual" was to negate this difference entirely. Besides, a lot of the people that others label "transsexual" don't exactly like the term itself; I only use it because it's the easiest term for other people to understand.

Also, calling yourself a transsexualist could extend to FTM's as well; you can't assume that every self-described transsexualist likes only those of the "opposite gender" (which, as a concept, doesn't even make sense of trans identities in the first place).

I'm trying to stress the fact that we're people first, and suggested a category that potentially includes anyone without dividing us further; transsexualist does the exact opposite, and pigeonholes both of us in such inaccurate ways. And it doesn't include guys who like all women, trans or otherwise.

As for your other post, I can't comprehend Eastern philosophies until I've had my second cup of coffee, so I'll have to get back to you on that one; but you might find the idea of the syzygy (the philosophical concept, as well as the Jungian term) particularly interesting.

our earthly presense defines us in the physical, our unfortunate limited capacity to communicate requires us to have labels. i.e. a red ball

the previous snippet from buddhist belief is one i personally adhere to. Is there such a thing a gender? only on the outside as our labels apply. on the inside we are all the same in my thoughts. we all love, hate, etc.

'She responded that there was no male and no female' .

If as a society we could all grasp this spiritual notion then perhaps we would not need labels. then again maybe we need to develope our telepathic communicative powers then we would know no lies deciept gender etc . we would all be the person inside.