in no other area of civil liberties are people allowed to specify and objectify to a rigid degree "a type". indeed crimes against humanity are performed in service of this impulse at the other pole of morality. and i think the sexual communities are wrong to insist with such vehemence on such exclusionary criteria.

i don't think it's in line with the forward movement of civil liberties to piss on somebody who is pansexual, either.

i speak as someone who has a type. which is the most paleolithic idea i ever had.