[Redway]

Originally Posted by Withano

Theres a very large difference between being sexually attracted to both male and female genitalia, and not caring much at all for either but being sexually attracted to personality types imo.

If pan people dont associate with bi people because they literally dont share the same sexual attraction as them, then.. well.. so what?

You don’t get hetero-romantic asexuals calling themselves straight, or straight people demanding that theyre no different to them.

Pansexual people dont feel bisexual, they dont have the same sexual attraction as a bisexual person.

Heterosexuality isn't some uniform experience either by the way. Some straight people give more of a damn about personality than looks. Should they be split off into divergent groupings?

Note that in that example it's only the extent or quality of the sexual attraction that differs. Not the direction. Same goes for this bisexuality-pansexuality thing you've been flogging for the last seven pages.

[RichardG]

Originally Posted by Redway

Heterosexuality isn't some uniform experience either by the way. Some straight people give more of a damn about personality than looks. Should they be split off into divergent groupings?

this is what i don't understand. i don't reach for my dick every time i see some random girl's tit, personality would arguably be the biggest factor. what does that make me? what is my diagnosis? am i now a part of the lgbt+ community? not that i particularly care anyway, these obscure genders and sexualities don't seem to matter to anyone other than those within niche internet subgroups.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by RichardG

this is what i don't understand. i don't reach for my dick every time i see some random girl's tit, personality would arguably be the biggest factor. what does that make me? what is my diagnosis? am i now a part of the lgbt+ community? not that i particularly care anyway, these obscure genders and sexualities don't seem to matter to anyone other than those within niche internet subgroups.

"A divergent and morbid form of heterosexuality wherein, contrary to the norm for young guys, he doesn't shag the first girl in the club and character usurps more of an influence of position than looks."

Charactersexual flipping pervert. How dare you place more on personality than physical appearance and still try and pass for 100% straight.

[RichardG]

Originally Posted by Redway

"A divergent and morbid form of heterosexuality wherein, contrary to the norm for young guys, he doesn't shag the first girl in the club and character usurps more of an influence of position than looks."

Charactersexual flipping pervert. How dare you place more on personality than physical appearance and still try and pass for 100% straight.

guilty as charged your honour! lock me up and throw away the keys, along with just about every other man and woman above the age of thirteen!

honestly, if the theory goes that pansexuals are attracted to personality while the rest of us are attracted to genitals and that's that on that then we're essentially all being called perverts and i'm lowkey offended.

[thesheriff443]

It's only words at the end of the day, I find it's far easier to judge than it is to be judged.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

It's only words at the end of the day, I find it's far easier to judge than it is to be judged.

See I don't believe that disagreeing with pansexuality or any other label is 'judging' as such... I don't believe that there should be all of these extra labels, but I don't discriminate against those who have the beliefs or ideas that belong to what is expected within those labels. I just think that it is a lot easier and a lot less complicated to have sexualities with exceptions or differences rather than dedicating a whole new notion to housing those differences.

[Redway]

As nice as it is to philosophise about these alternatives the survival of the next generation depends on reproduction. That's not a myth that's been passed down from generation to generation. Most people are attracted to the same sex and as much as I don't have a problem with sexual minorities that's the way it needs to be.

Like I say the continuation of the human species would be up in arms if most people weren't heterosexual. That's a hard fact whether it sounds all nice and super-duper PC or not. Heterosexuality's not some abstract theory. It's a fact of life and no amount of acceptance of sexual minorities (rightfully) can change that. It's deeply rooted in biology.

[Maru]

I feel like those who are overly invested in these terms and whether they are taken seriously enough are missing the point... forget what we're called, get out there and live your life? What a way to kill the fun of one of the most liberating aspects of being human...


On pan-sexual... I won't treat it as a thing until it has a steady definition. I've watched videos where people who asked what that means struggle to describe it. Now, think about that from the view of a spectator.. if they can't put the definition of a new word into terms other people can understand without a lot of word fumbling, maybe it is not such a good term.

The version about bisexuals who will sleep with trans-folk though makes functional sense at least... because then that's a way to signal to trans-folk they are open... but again, does that deserve a new classification with regards to sexuality?

The version that makes the most sense for me is that it means they are and can be attracted to literally anything. Since pan- means 'all'...I think one definition I heard, it figured in attractions to inanimate objects, animals, other weird stuff... etc...

I Love You, Bot (Full Ep)
http://money.cnn.com/mostly-human/i-love-you-bot/

About a french lady who falls in love with and marries a 3d printed robot she made in her home.

Otherkin Therian Documentary

Youtube video

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

See I don't believe that disagreeing with pansexuality or any other label is 'judging' as such... I don't believe that there should be all of these extra labels, but I don't discriminate against those who have the beliefs or ideas that belong to what is expected within those labels. I just think that it is a lot easier and a lot less complicated to have sexualities with exceptions or differences rather than dedicating a whole new notion to housing those differences.

Looking at the subject in question, you have made a judgment on what you consider to be acceptable and needed.

It's like you are saying, I'm judging but in a good way.

[Jack_]

Before you can even begin to unpack this question, one has to understand that the very notion of "having" a sexual orientation in the first place is not an inherent truth, but something which has been discursively produced over the last three centuries. All sexualities (and their parameters) have been created - and that's a key point.

Consider this too - there are a multitude of things that can encompass one's sexuality, narrowing it down solely to gender and/or genitalia preference is actually very delimiting. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet is an enlightening and thought-provoking read on this matter:

It is a rather amazing fact that, of the very many dimensions along which the genital activity of one person can be differentiated from that of another (dimensions that include preference for certain acts, certain zones or sensations, certain physical types, a certain frequency, certain symbolic investments, certain relations of age or power, a certain species, a certain number of participants, etc. etc. etc.), precisely one, the gender of object choice, emerged from the turn of the century, and has remained, as the dimension denoted by the now ubiquitous category of "sexual orientation". This is not a development that would have been foreseen from the viewpoint of the fin de siècle itself, where a rich stew of male algolagnia, child-love, and autoeroticism, to mention no more of its components, seemed to have as indicative a relation as did homosexuality to the whole, obsessively entertained problematic of sexual "prevision" or, more broadly, "decadence". Foucault, for instance, mentions the hysterical woman and the masturbating child, along with the "entomologized" sexological categories such as zoophiles, zooerasts, auto-monosexualists, and gynecomasts, as typifying the new sexual taxonomies, the "specification of individuals" that facilitated the modern freighting of sexual definition with epistemological and power relations. True as his notation is, it suggests without beginning to answer the further question: why the category of "the masturbator", to choose only one example, should by now have entirely lost its diacritical potential for specifying a particular kind of person, an identity, at the same time as it continues to be true - becomes increasingly true - that, for a crucial strain of Western discourse, in Foucault's words "the homosexual was now a species". So, as a result, is the heterosexual, and between these species the human species has come more and more to be divided.

(pp. 8-9)

It is certainly true that without a concept of gender there could be, quite simply, no concept of homo- or heterosexuality. But many other dimensions of sexual choice (auto- or alloerotic, within or between generations, species, etc.) have no such distinctive, explicit definitional connection with gender; indeed, some dimensions of sexuality might be tied, not to gender, but instead to differences or similarities of race or class. The definitional narrowing-down in this century of sexuality as a whole to a binarized calculus of homo- or heterosexuality is a weighty fact but an entirely historical one.

(p. 31)

So...here's where I stand. I actually agree with whoever it was that said labels cause more problems than they solve. In an ideal world, we'd completely destabilise and deconstruct sexuality (and gender too) so that it wasn't even a necessary marker of identity. The problem is that this isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future - and what's more is for hundreds of years those who have been criminalised for their sexual transgressions have sought to demand legitimacy through reclaiming the same terms by which they were marginalised in the first place (what's known as reverse discourse). And so what are we left with? The bizarre realisation that all of the normative sexualities have themselves been constructed, and yet a firm opposition to the creation of anymore? That doesn't really check out for me, it's an all or nothing deal.

I once identified as pan because I thought it was the closest thing to 'open minded' or 'not needing a label', then I realised how unbelievably ironic that was. Now? It's probably bicurious for ease-of-explanation, but even then that doesn't begin to cover the nuances. The truth is that I am That Guy who's all ~I don't like labels~ but that's only because I don't think the complexities of human sexuality can be narrowed down to convenient boxes we've created to help understand the world. But hey, if labels work for you, great! All power to you. Identify however you like...or don't at all...either way it doesn't really matter.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Pansexuality is a bugbear of mine because it's very definition basically makes out that bisexuals are transphobic or lesser in comparison. I don't think there's any differences between bisexuality and pansexuality to warrant two different terms and I generally think that, when it comes to the LGBT, we should be simplifying things and not coming up with new terms that are designed to make every last person feel unique and special.

I think when it comes down to it, there's only four sexual orientations which are straight, gay, bi and Asexual. I think anything else is extraneous tbh and I cringe whenever I see someone say LGBTGSDGARASDASASHRTDFAS because it's just so extra in a bad way since it gives fuel to the fire for the people who want to dismiss the cause as a whole.

Omg i watched a youtube video about the long alphabet they've added to LGBT , they've literally added letters for the sake of it and it looks ridiculous . People apart of that community are confused by the letters themselves .

It's so long they might aswell add straight /hetro to the list , it's like a drunk person was learning the alphabet for the first time and went down a funny road of random jibberish .

[user104658]

I just think it's a huge oversimplification of heterosexual sexuality to say that it's about "liking specific genitals".

I can aesthetically appreciate the female form. I can aesthetically appreciate the male form. I (thus far I suppose??) have never been interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with a male. And my attraction to females isn't 100% reliant on stereotypical "attractive norms". Is anyone's? If someone is attracted to one brunette with a certain body type, does that mean they will DEFINITELY be attracted to a different brunette with that body type, if she has a different personality and carries herself differently?

For example, there's a reason that that old phrase "Oh you'll like him / her, they're JUST your type!" rarely works. The person who is supposed to like this other person who is their "type" nine times out of ten will be like "Meh... Nah."... Because attraction is subtle and nuanced.

Also the reason that you can be highly attracted to, say, a TV or movie character... But be left completely cold when you see the actor in an interview, if the actor is nothing like the role they're playing.

This is normal sexuality. I get the feeling that those arguing for "pansexuality" don't get that attraction to personality is a HUGE (the biggest) component in all sexualities?

[Ammi]

....hmmmm I just think that, that’s expanding it out a little too far TS...for the moment anyway because there is always going to be many factors which are individual to people in terms of ‘attraction’ that extend beyond ‘physical’...


...i’m a little bit Dezzy and a little bit Withano on this...(..Dezzano....?...)...I do feel that before ‘similarities’ are looked at in terms of umbrellas etc...differences first have to be recognised and acknowledged....(...my understanding has always been ...and thank you Jack for helping with that in some chats many tides ago that we had, you and I.....)...that for instance when we look at a visual, physical instinct attraction for instance...like say, looking at a pic of a celebrity and thinking...yeah that person is ‘hot’/attractive etc...it’s something that many can relate to, whatever their sexuality...a physical thing about someone that would instinctively attract the eye attention as it were..?....but not so for a pansexual person as ‘physical’ is not a factor at all in that initial thing...so basically there could never be an ‘initial thing’ I guess...it would be personality/character etc...(...and attributes of character would differ in each individual pansexual also, I would say...)...but the fundamental difference to be acknowledged is that a person’s character to whatever degree would have to be displayed/to be seen first...

...I do feel that ‘labelling’ can be so counter productive and many labels can create so much confusion as to ‘alienate and switch off’ as well for so many people...(..but as we seem to very much be in a labelling society’..)....it’s inevitable that people don’t want to be labelled incorrectly...and that for me is where it’s important to acknowledge differences in sexualities...before we can reach similarities that may bring it all to a less confusing place in terms of umbrellas branching out etc....

[Ammi]

...in my head this all makes sense...but it is quite a complex thing...but of complete importance to so many people that their sexuality is understood.../...for its differences as well as its similarities....

[Ammi]

..yeah I do think pansexuality is a thing, did I say that...it may be a thing that can ...(...at some point...)...be snuggled under the umbrella of another thing...but surely the thing of its differences have to be understood and acknowledged first...that’s the thing...the thing I’m thinking atm...




....oh what a thing...etc...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

....hmmmm I just think that, that’s expanding it out a little too far TS...for the moment anyway because there is always going to be many factors which are individual to people in terms of ‘attraction’ that extend beyond ‘physical’...


...i’m a little bit Dezzy and a little bit Withano on this...(..Dezzano....?...)...I do feel that before ‘similarities’ are looked at in terms of umbrellas etc...differences first have to be recognised and acknowledged....(...my understanding has always been ...and thank you Jack for helping with that in some chats many tides ago that we had, you and I.....)...that for instance when we look at a visual, physical instinct attraction for instance...like say, looking at a pic of a celebrity and thinking...yeah that person is ‘hot’/attractive etc...it’s something that many can relate to, whatever their sexuality...a physical thing about someone that would instinctively attract the eye attention as it were..?....but not so for a pansexual person as ‘physical’ is not a factor at all in that initial thing...so basically there could never be an ‘initial thing’ I guess...it would be personality/character etc...(...and attributes of character would differ in each individual pansexual also, I would say...)...but the fundamental difference to be acknowledged is that a person’s character to whatever degree would have to be displayed/to be seen first...

...I do feel that ‘labelling’ can be so counter productive and many labels can create so much confusion as to ‘alienate and switch off’ as well for so many people...(..but as we seem to very much be in a labelling society’..)....it’s inevitable that people don’t want to be labelled incorrectly...and that for me is where it’s important to acknowledge differences in sexualities...before we can reach similarities that may bring it all to a less confusing place in terms of umbrellas branching out etc....

I agree with the labelling, and that's sort of what I'm trying to say, I guess. Sexuality is such a nuanced and complicated psychological thing for EVERY individual that it just doesn't really lend itself to categorisation as solidly as many people seem to think (or seem to wish?) it does. For example, speaking of physical attraction being a factor, this isn't a "yes/no" question... it matters entirely to some (very shallow) people, a lot to some people, somewhat to others, not much to others, hardly at all to some... not at all to some. It's an entire sliding scale, surely... at what point on that scale does a bisexual individual "suddenly" become pansexual?

Where has the idea that heterosexuality is "simple" come from, I suppose is my question? It isn't, it's infinitely complex, and entirely individual... literally no two people of any sexual persuasion have "identical" sexualities, and therefore, the labelling is of absolutely no utility in terms of personal identity. One's sexuality is what it is, and doesn't need to be labelled. So... with that being the case... the only point in labelling at all is as an indicator to potential partners. For that purpose, straight/gay/bi is all that's really needed. The idea that we have to add "pan" to indicate "open to trans" is sort of offensive, surely? All that really needs to be said on that is that it's a personal preference / philosophical issue... it doesn't need its own term... that's like saying we need terms for people who are/aren't open to relationships with fat people, or open to relationships with bald men.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The idea that we have to add "pan" to indicate "open to trans" is sort of offensive, surely? All that really needs to be said on that is that it's a personal preference / philosophical issue... it doesn't need its own term... that's like saying we need terms for people who are/aren't open to relationships with fat people, or open to relationships with bald men.

that's sort of thing already exists, e.g in gay community you have chubby chasers, bear lovers etc
must say I haven't thought of that much but my gut instinct is not to see bi as transphobic anymore than homo is heterophobic
I may be wrong, but I see bi as liking people with well-defined genders i.e they may be happy with a fully trasitioned trans but not with a trans half-way through a transition, whereas a pansexual doesn't give a hoot about such details
so bi: male + female, pan: male, intersex, female
correct me if I'm simplifying

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

I may be wrong, but I see bi as liking people with well-defined genders i.e they may be happy with a fully trasitioned trans but not with a trans half-way through a transition, whereas a pansexual doesn't give a hoot about such details

Nah, I don't think willingness to date traps really comes into it either. The Youtube Blaire White has said that all of her boyfriends had only been with biological women before her, and that they were able to get over the fact she has a dick. They don't need a special label, they're just straight guys who have an unusual girlfriend.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

that's sort of thing already exists, e.g in gay community you have chubby chasers, bear lovers etc
must say I haven't thought of that much but my gut instinct is not to see bi as transphobic anymore than homo is heterophobic
I may be wrong, but I see bi as liking people with well-defined genders i.e they may be happy with a fully trasitioned trans but not with a trans half-way through a transition, whereas a pansexual doesn't give a hoot about such details
so bi: male + female, pan: male, intersex, female
correct me if I'm simplifying

Sure but "chubby chasers" don't label themselves crassusexual, or "bear lovers" ... Ursasexual I guess? That's sort of the point. A personal preference does not necessarily have to have "its own sexuality"...

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree with the labelling, and that's sort of what I'm trying to say, I guess. Sexuality is such a nuanced and complicated psychological thing for EVERY individual that it just doesn't really lend itself to categorisation as solidly as many people seem to think (or seem to wish?) it does. For example, speaking of physical attraction being a factor, this isn't a "yes/no" question... it matters entirely to some (very shallow) people, a lot to some people, somewhat to others, not much to others, hardly at all to some... not at all to some. It's an entire sliding scale, surely... at what point on that scale does a bisexual individual "suddenly" become pansexual?

Where has the idea that heterosexuality is "simple" come from, I suppose is my question? It isn't, it's infinitely complex, and entirely individual... literally no two people of any sexual persuasion have "identical" sexualities, and therefore, the labelling is of absolutely no utility in terms of personal identity. One's sexuality is what it is, and doesn't need to be labelled. So... with that being the case... the only point in labelling at all is as an indicator to potential partners. For that purpose, straight/gay/bi is all that's really needed. The idea that we have to add "pan" to indicate "open to trans" is sort of offensive, surely? All that really needs to be said on that is that it's a personal preference / philosophical issue... it doesn't need its own term... that's like saying we need terms for people who are/aren't open to relationships with fat people, or open to relationships with bald men.

...yeah I completely understand everything you’re saying TS...(..you and I are never really far away on the thoughts and mindset page with many things, I feel..)...I think for me actually with some of my thoughts, there are similarities when you and I were discussing feminism...(..ish....)...in that ‘equality of recognition and understanding etc’ has to be reached first...to question if pansexual is a thing for instance...(..when it most definately is a thing for those who identify as pansexual..)...really doesn’t give it an equal status, does it...I mean even just the questioning of it...so that recognition has to be reached first...as with other and all sexualities who (..atm..)...don’t feel they are being defined correctly or accurately by specific umbrellas, as it were...so it’s looking at and acknowledging the differences first ...which would then for me, lead to looking at and acknowledging the similarities...and then leading again onto being able to start to ‘simplify’ what could be pulled under certain umbrellas for a better understanding and progression...


...and I do agree with ‘labels’ also, which I think I said...but I think that’s probably also a little bit of a ‘necessary phase in time’...because there is so much scope for openness about sexuality now, more so than any other time...so I think in time as well and with that understanding and acknowledgement of all of our differences, as it were...there will be less labelling as time goes by...as our ‘human understanding’ grows....

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just think it's a huge oversimplification of heterosexual sexuality to say that it's about "liking specific genitals".

I can aesthetically appreciate the female form. I can aesthetically appreciate the male form. I (thus far I suppose??) have never been interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with a male. And my attraction to females isn't 100% reliant on stereotypical "attractive norms". Is anyone's? If someone is attracted to one brunette with a certain body type, does that mean they will DEFINITELY be attracted to a different brunette with that body type, if she has a different personality and carries herself differently?

For example, there's a reason that that old phrase "Oh you'll like him / her, they're JUST your type!" rarely works. The person who is supposed to like this other person who is their "type" nine times out of ten will be like "Meh... Nah."... Because attraction is subtle and nuanced.

Also the reason that you can be highly attracted to, say, a TV or movie character... But be left completely cold when you see the actor in an interview, if the actor is nothing like the role they're playing.

This is normal sexuality. I get the feeling that those arguing for "pansexuality" don't get that attraction to personality is a HUGE (the biggest) component in all sexualities?

A great post T.S. I agree entirely.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just think it's a huge oversimplification of heterosexual sexuality to say that it's about "liking specific genitals".

I can aesthetically appreciate the female form. I can aesthetically appreciate the male form. I (thus far I suppose??) have never been interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with a male. And my attraction to females isn't 100% reliant on stereotypical "attractive norms". Is anyone's? If someone is attracted to one brunette with a certain body type, does that mean they will DEFINITELY be attracted to a different brunette with that body type, if she has a different personality and carries herself differently?

For example, there's a reason that that old phrase "Oh you'll like him / her, they're JUST your type!" rarely works. The person who is supposed to like this other person who is their "type" nine times out of ten will be like "Meh... Nah."... Because attraction is subtle and nuanced.

Also the reason that you can be highly attracted to, say, a TV or movie character... But be left completely cold when you see the actor in an interview, if the actor is nothing like the role they're playing.

This is normal sexuality. I get the feeling that those arguing for "pansexuality" don't get that attraction to personality is a HUGE (the biggest) component in all sexualities?

Yeah totally agree with that

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just think it's a huge oversimplification of heterosexual sexuality to say that it's about "liking specific genitals".

I can aesthetically appreciate the female form. I can aesthetically appreciate the male form. I (thus far I suppose??) have never been interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with a male. And my attraction to females isn't 100% reliant on stereotypical "attractive norms". Is anyone's? If someone is attracted to one brunette with a certain body type, does that mean they will DEFINITELY be attracted to a different brunette with that body type, if she has a different personality and carries herself differently?

For example, there's a reason that that old phrase "Oh you'll like him / her, they're JUST your type!" rarely works. The person who is supposed to like this other person who is their "type" nine times out of ten will be like "Meh... Nah."... Because attraction is subtle and nuanced.

Also the reason that you can be highly attracted to, say, a TV or movie character... But be left completely cold when you see the actor in an interview, if the actor is nothing like the role they're playing.

This is normal sexuality. I get the feeling that those arguing for "pansexuality" don't get that attraction to personality is a HUGE (the biggest) component in all sexualities?

Amazing post tbh, but especially the bolded parts.

I never really thought about this before, but yeah, the TV character thing is spot on. I fancy some actors so much in some stuff, and then in other stuff just..no, or yeah in TV interviews and that too. I never really thought about it too much but of course its because of the character, rather than the looks.

A great example of this I think for me is, and this will show how my type is 'generally' geeky, but not 'geeky' as in appearance especially..is criminal minds. Not sure how many people on here watch it mind..but yeah. There is a character on it called Spencer Reid. I thought he was fairly gross tbh when I started watching it. But after maybe half a series, I fancied him like mad, and still do...and have just recently found out that hes actually a model too..so quite how I ever thought he was gross on first impressions is beyond me, but I did Was the same with Dexter Morgan, not attracted to him at all, then fancied him like mad from a few episodes in...right up til the end. However, watching the actor in other stuff, or in interviews is just such a nono...its Dexter Morgan that I fancy, not Michael C Hall.

This happens near every year on BB too. I can really fancy people on first appearances (which is probably how I had so many one night stands when younger tbh, with people I had just met) but once I know their personality too..everything changes. the best example of this I think was Dale in BB9. He was stunning. But after a couple of weeks? I found him grotesque tbh. Going the opposite way..Freddie in BB10. Thought he was not attractive at all, but come halfway through the series, I fancied him like mad. And then started going off him in that way once he started getting really arrogant (something I tend to hate in people) and now, cannot see what the hell I ever saw in him, though still appreciate him as a housemate.

I am bisexual, I think females and female bodies are much much better to look at than male ones, however I prefer actually having sex with male people..as there are so many other differences than just ****ing genitals. I do, however, prefer kissing female people. Maybe I have just had good luck with the females I have kissed, but women kiss so much better than men do tbh

So yeah, of course its all so much more complicated than some would have us believe. Some people are shallow enough to be only interested in aesthetics...but the vast6 vast majority I would wager, care about so much more than just looks...or genitals. Genitals are odd looking things anyway, I think. I cannot imagine being attracted to a walking vagina, and I would just piss myself laughing at a walking cock and balls.

[Beso]

Do pansexuals have sex?


Cause the last time i checked you cant shag a personality!

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Do pansexuals have sex?


Cause the last time i checked you cant shag a personality!

...yeah when their sexuality has become attracted to that other person’s whole being...which obviously would include their personality as well.....