In Response to Adaimantes' Question

"The term often suggests that one can simultaneously love different people"

This is true, and it may cause much grief for those who can not understand the ability to love many people at once.  Bennu was right in saying it is more about the essence of the human being, and it is an indifference to gender.  But I would like to add also that it is an indifference to certain moral structures, such as monogamy (which to me, is synonymous with ownership)  I love many people, but I feel no desire to control or own them.  We should be free to love many people, as there are many different traits in many people to love, and learn from.  Monogamy stems from primal urges, we are at a point in human history where we should be able to overcome these animal inhibitions by using our capacity for logic.  With contraception available, an abundance of resources, relative freedom of travel, the increasing transience of people, places, and things, monogamy is somewhat out-dated.  My love is not limited, nor is it dictated by old concepts such as gender. 

I once asked a lover if he thought I spread my love to thin.  He lay wrapped in my arms, his eyes closed, my fingers stroking his hair.  At first he wanted to say yes, because his knowledge of my free love caused him insecurity.  His **** might be smaller than the others, or the other men and women might be smarter or better looking than him, but he paused for a moment and after a while he said "No, you give me plenty"

And this, you see, is not a discussion about sex.  This is true love.  He is there for me, I for him.  Just as I am there for many other people.  If he had said 'Yes, you spread your love too thin, give me more and them less" I would have lost an amount of respect for him.  Such an attitude extends only from insecurity.  Those are causeless insecurities, derived from nothing less than personal weakness, illogical thinking, emotional instability.  And my love has no place in the hearts of the weak.  I will not be owned, nor will I own another.  People who want you to never share your love with another, they want to be owned.  They want the security that comes with being a slave.  I will have no romantic ties with such people, as they are only a liability to my freedom, and their own.
  It is a constant battle, but our fights against primal urges usually are.  I'll tell you, the struggle with monogamy is much more difficult and senseless than the fight with insecurity and illogical pain. 
Even when you manage to cope with monogamy, you will have to cope with jealousy, insecurity, fear, sacrifice, inter-dependence, guilt, emotional vulnerability ten-fold.  And to me, that is a silly way of life.

So yes, pan-sexuality is in part about having sexual relations with more than one person.  But it goes beyond sex, and it delves more into learning about each other and learning about yourself through human interaction.  By having a vast network of personal connections, multiple solid friendships, multiple lovers and teachers, one can grow to be the very best she or he can be.  If the sexuality extends to animals, objects, etc., that is of personal choice and reason.  But when I think of pan-sexual I don't think of goat-*******, I think of people open to many experiences, and believe in sexual freedom and practice mutual respect and humility.

Cade Cade
Mar 3, 2009