Do you think Pansexuality is a thing?

[Tom4784]

Pansexuality, or omnisexuality,[1] is the sexual, romantic or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity.[2][3] Pansexual people may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are not determining factors in their romantic or sexual attraction to others.[4][5]

Pansexuality may be considered a sexual orientation in its own right or a branch of bisexuality, to indicate an alternative sexual identity.[3][6][7] Because pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, and pansexuality therefore rejects the gender binary,[3][7] it is often considered a more inclusive term than bisexual.[8][9] To what extent the term bisexual is inclusive when compared with the term pansexual is debated within the LGBT community, especially the bisexual community

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.

[RileyH]

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.

:clap1: :clap1:

[MB.]

I don't see why it's any of my business to go around labelling other people's sexual identities as valid or invalid

[Tom4784]

I don't see why it's any of my business to go around labelling other people's sexual identities as valid or invalid

But by definition, pansexuality does just that to bisexuality.

[Twosugars]

Imo it's too early to say. Gender fluidity has become a widely publicised thing only recently. Need to wait and see if it catches on as a popular alternative to binary genders. It may or may not be just a fad.

[Denver]

Well I'm pansexual

[MB.]

Well I'm pansexual

In which case I've changed my mind

[Shaun]

Whilst gender fluidity is entirely valid and 100% something I support, it is still ultimately the fluidity between two set sexes and I would consider anyone who's attracted to someone regardless of their gender as 'bisexual'.

As Dezzy said, its very definition just basically implies that anyone who identifies as a bisexual is inherently transphobic.

I don't really see the need for extra letters to LGBT because the very existence of an "LGBT" community is already fractured and complicated enough within itself - see every single example of gays rubbing trans the wrong way, the past ten years :laugh: Of course if it's just an umbrella term for "let's have a pride event, X Y and Z you're all welcome!" then sure, but I don't see any natural inclination for bisexual people to be associated, by definition, with say, asexuals, or allies. (I personally think including 'allies' at all is a bit laughable but that's neither here nor there).

Asexuality also seems an odd inclusion, since I would have thought having zero sexual interest wouldn't have much of an impact on your day to day life, and see little room for prejudice against you... save for a few awkward "well WHY don't you like sex!!!??" questions.

And once you start attempting to break down the differences between genderfluid, genderqueer, agender, you just generally start losing people and it's a little bit like trying to explain the rules to Quidditch to someone who's never read Harry Potter, nor has to.

[montblanc]

i think it is tbh

but i agree that the extraneous amount of terms is unnecessary

[bots]

I don't know why any labels are needed at all. It's the creation of labels and trying to pigeon hole people that causes the majority of the problems that we have.

[Twosugars]

Whilst gender fluidity is entirely valid and 100% something I support, it is still ultimately the fluidity between two set sexes and I would consider anyone who's attracted to someone regardless of their gender as 'bisexual'.

As Dezzy said, its very definition just basically implies that anyone who identifies as a bisexual is inherently transphobic.

I don't really see the need for extra letters to LGBT because the very existence of an "LGBT" community is already fractured and complicated enough within itself - see every single example of gays rubbing trans the wrong way, the past ten years :laugh: Of course if it's just an umbrella term for "let's have a pride event, X Y and Z you're all welcome!" then sure, but I don't see any natural inclination for bisexual people to be associated, by definition, with say, asexuals, or allies. (I personally think including 'allies' at all is a bit laughable but that's neither here nor there).

Asexuality also seems an odd inclusion, since I would have thought having zero sexual interest wouldn't have much of an impact on your day to day life, and see little room for prejudice against you... save for a few awkward "well WHY don't you like sex!!!??" questions.

And once you start attempting to break down the differences between genderfluid, genderqueer, agender, you just generally start losing people and it's a little bit like trying to explain the rules to Quidditch to someone who's never read Harry Potter, nor has to.

Agree with most.
But would have to ask bisexuals if they go for mixed gendered individuals or not. We should not assume they do. If you like chicks and dicks does it mean you automatically like chicks with dicks?

[Shaun]

Perhaps not, but it would be wrong to assume they don't, too, as the word 'pan' seems to.

[montblanc]

I don't know why any labels are needed at all. It's the creation of labels and trying to pigeon hole people that causes the majority of the problems that we have.

we live in a society where being straight is “normal”

how would people who aren’t straight live in a world without labels?

[Twosugars]

Perhaps not, but it would be wrong to assume they don't, too, as the word 'pan' seems to.

Of course

[Amy Jade]

Honestly I am quite ignorant about sexuality. I am straight and I have a few gay and bi friends so I get that but anything else I am pretty vague on. I don't tend to care what somebodys sexuality is so I don't understand it well at all.

[TomC]

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.

I think the difference between them is that bisexual people are attracted to two genders (hence the 'bi'), whereas pansexual preferences are indiscriminate: they don't see gender.

I don't think there's an implication of bisexual transphobia.

[TomC]

I also disagree with the four sexualities thing because it contradicts my belief in the scale.

[TomC]

I don't know why any labels are needed at all. It's the creation of labels and trying to pigeon hole people that causes the majority of the problems that we have.

Because in 2018, the default label is straight. We're still living in a heteronormative society.

[Withano]

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.



Your understanding of pan is different to mine.

My understanding of bi, is that gender matters. They are sexually attracted to men because they love cock (etc) and women because they love tits (etc), whereas a pansexual can love both of these genders, but not because of their genitals. Genitals arent a factor that they consider when searching for a companion, which is unlike bi people.

Bi people are sexually aroused by men and women, whereas pansexual people do not care if they are men or women, they are instead aroused by their persona, and gender would therefore not matter.

I dont even know if that makes sense, but I cant make a third paragraph on it, thats so extra.

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

[Crimson Dynamo]

absolute bollocks, just people trying to satiate out basic desire to feel important, same as pretending to see ghosts or talking to spirits. It just makes the person feel important and that people are interested in them

:joker:

[Withano]

(Yes, I think pansexual is a thing. Some people are sexually attracted to cattle or cars or whatever furries are supposed to be, why cant others be sexually attacted to personality!)

[Shaun]

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

See I've heard this line of removing the sex from the whole equation before but that still doesn't make much sense to me. Ultimately you are playing with someone's genitals, whatever their gender is, so just resting and saying "I fall in love with a person, not a sex :)" is just incredibly condescending to anyone who identifies as anything other than pansexual. Also implies all homosexual males only like cis men, all heterosexual females only like cis men, etc. etc.

[Withano]

Well I'm pansexual

See I've heard this line of removing the sex from the whole equation before but that still doesn't make much sense to me. Ultimately you are playing with someone's genitals, whatever their gender is, so just resting and saying "I fall in love with a person, not a sex :)" is just incredibly condescending to anyone who identifies as anything other than pansexual. Also implies all homosexual males only like cis men, all heterosexual females only like cis men, etc. etc.

It doesnt really, unless you presume that hetero males always only like cis women (etc). I’m sure there are far beyond millions of self identifying heterosexual men that like transwomen too. You’re reading into the ‘trans’ thing more than I, thats not the key difference from my perspective.

The difference is bi people seeking out both genders because theyre aroused by both genders (may include trans), or pan people seeking out any gender, because they literally can be aroused by any gender depending on their personality (also, may include trans).

@Adam contributing more would be helpful if he really is pan? Am i on the right track or no?

[Beso]

Your understanding of pan is different to mine.

My understanding of bi, is that gender matters. They are sexually attracted to men because they love cock (etc) and women because they love tits (etc), whereas a pansexual can love both of these genders, but not because of their genitals. Genitals arent a factor that they consider when searching for a companion, which is unlike bi people.

Bi people are sexually aroused by men and women, whereas pansexual people do not care if they are men or women, they are instead aroused by their persona, and gender would therefore not matter.

I dont even know if that makes sense, but I cant make a third paragraph on it, thats so extra.

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

Can a childs persona attract them?

[Withano]

Can a childs persona attract them?

I wouldnt call that pan, I’d call that something else.

[kirklancaster]

absolute bollocks, just people trying to satiate out basic desire to feel important, same as pretending to see ghosts or talking to spirits. It just makes the person feel important and that people are interested in them

:joker:

:nono: I have often seen pansexual ghosts. :hee:

[montblanc]

Can a childs persona attract them?

i think you missed the point

[Oliver_W]

Nah, pansexuality is not a thing.

It doesn't matter if someone thinks they're "nonbinary", they still either look male or female, and people will be attracted to them accordingly. Same with transpeople - some transwomen will unfortunately just look like dudes with long hair, so someone who likes long haired guys might fancy them as that.

[Beso]

i think you missed the point

Thats why i am asking a question thanks.

[montblanc]

Thats why i am asking a question thanks.

oh sorry i thought you were being sarcastic

[Oliver_W]

Your understanding of pan is different to mine.

My understanding of bi, is that gender matters. They are sexually attracted to men because they love cock (etc) and women because they love tits (etc), whereas a pansexual can love both of these genders, but not because of their genitals. Genitals arent a factor that they consider when searching for a companion, which is unlike bi people.

Bi people are sexually aroused by men and women, whereas pansexual people do not care if they are men or women, they are instead aroused by their persona, and gender would therefore not matter.

I dont even know if that makes sense, but I cant make a third paragraph on it, thats so extra.

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

It's just word vomit. A straight person might love tits, but fall in love with a flat chested woman because he loved her personality. That doesn't mean he needs a new made up label, it just means that looks/biological features aren't all that matters.

A bisexual person can be attracted to both sexes, be it for their personalities or features. There's no need to call it "pansexuality" when it's the former.

[Withano]

It's just word vomit. A straight person might love tits, but fall in love with a flat chested woman because he loved her personality. That doesn't mean he needs a new made up label, it just means that looks/biological features aren't all that matters.

A bisexual person can be attracted to both sexes, be it for their personalities or features. There's no need to call it "pansexuality" when it's the former.

I disagree... if theres anything that umpteen years of Big Brother, and Big Brother forums has taught me, its that plenty of people are sexually attracted to those they despise, pan people won’t relate to that.

[Oliver_W]

I disagree... if theres anything that umpteen years of Big Brother, and Big Brother forums has taught me, its that plenty of people are sexually attracted to those they despise, pan people won’t relate to that.
They're more likely to be bisexuals who won't fancy someone they don't like. Straight people can be un-attracted to people of their preferred sex if they have crappy personalities - they don't suddenly have a whole new sexuality.

[Redway]

Nope.

[Tom4784]

I think the difference between them is that bisexual people are attracted to two genders (hence the 'bi'), whereas pansexual preferences are indiscriminate: they don't see gender.

I don't think there's an implication of bisexual transphobia.

It's a pointless and pretentious difference, I'm bisexual and as long as I'm attracted to someone, I don't care what gender they consider themselves.

I also disagree with the four sexualities thing because it contradicts my belief in the scale.

If you aren't exclusively attracted to one gender then you're bisexual in my eyes (or asexual if you have no sexual impulses at all obvi).

Your understanding of pan is different to mine.

My understanding of bi, is that gender matters. They are sexually attracted to men because they love cock (etc) and women because they love tits (etc), whereas a pansexual can love both of these genders, but not because of their genitals. Genitals arent a factor that they consider when searching for a companion, which is unlike bi people.

Bi people are sexually aroused by men and women, whereas pansexual people do not care if they are men or women, they are instead aroused by their persona, and gender would therefore not matter.

I dont even know if that makes sense, but I cant make a third paragraph on it, thats so extra.

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

But by that definition it does make bisexuals look transphobic or close minded when I think most bisexuals would be DTF with trans as long as there's a sexual attraction there. I just don't think what would be a personal preference should necessitate the need for a sexuality that does have the effect of making bisexual people, regardless of their preferences, seem transphobic and like a lesser form of pansexuality.

I just find it all very pretentious.

[Withano]

They're more likely to be bisexuals who won't fancy someone they don't like. Straight people can be un-attracted to people of their preferred sex if they have crappy personalities - they don't suddenly have a whole new sexuality.

But they’d only be heterosexual if they are sexually attracted to the opposite sex? Not really comparable to somebody who isn’t attracted to a person’s sex.

[Redway]

Because in 2018, the default label is straight. We're still living in a heteronormative society.

As you'd expect it to be. No matter how open-minded we can be about alternative sexual lifestyles heterosexual's still the bio standardand so it should be.

[Withano]

But by that definition it does make bisexuals look transphobic or close minded when I think most bisexuals would be DTF with trans as long as there's a sexual attraction there. I just don't think what would be a personal preference should necessitate the need for a sexuality that does have the effect of making bisexual people, regardless of their preferences, seem transphobic and like a lesser form of pansexuality.

I just find it all very pretentious.

I agree, bi people, hetero people etc etc, some are very dtf trans. Thats not the key difference between bi and pan imo.



The difference is bi people seeking out both genders because theyre aroused by both genders (may include trans), or pan people seeking out any gender, because they literally can be aroused by any gender depending on their personality (also, may include trans).

[Oliver_W]

But they’d only be heterosexual if they are sexually attracted to the opposite sex? Not really comparable to somebody who isn’t attracted to a person’s sex.
What do you mean? I said "straight person" and "preferred sex" - there are two genders, and both terms I used are gender neutral, so could apply to either. I'll rephrase then:
A straight woman can find an otherwise attractive man repulsive if he had a crappy personality. She doesn't suddenly have a whole new sexuality just because persona overrode genitals.

Likewise, a bisexual person who prioritizes personality doesn't have a whole new sexuality. It's just for them looks/genitals aren't the most important thing. There's absolutely no need to invent a new label for that.

[Withano]

What do you mean? I said "straight person" and "preferred sex" - there are two genders, and both terms I used are gender neutral, so could apply to either. I'll rephrase then:
A straight woman can find an otherwise attractive man repulsive if he had a crappy personality. She doesn't suddenly have a whole new sexuality just because persona overrode genitals.

Likewise, a bisexual person who prioritizes personality doesn't have a whole new sexuality. It's just for them looks/genitals aren't the most important thing. There's absolutely no need to invent a new label for that.

And a pansexual person isn't fundamentally attracted to a persons sex, so these parallels dont really work.

[Oliver_W]

And a pansexual person isn't fundamentally attracted to a persons sex, so these parallels dont really work.

No, they're a bi person who doesn't care about what sex a potential partner is.

[Tom4784]

I agree, bi people, hetero people etc etc, some are very dtf trans. Thats not the key difference between bi and pan imo.

That's even worse, it sounds like you're making bi people out to be shallow sex mad maniacs, another problem with the Pansexuality label as it enforces that bisexual stereotype.

I don't think you can explain your way around it, the pansexual label is inherently condescending and outright derogatory to bisexuals, it demeans us, it reduces us to our base extincts and takes away the luxury of preference that other sexualities are seemingly allowed to have without being demeaned by a pretentious alternative.

[Jessica.]

Yes, but it's because I call myself Demisexual, so I don't think it would be fair to act like it's nonsense for someone to call themselves Pansexual if that's how they feel. Since I found something I identify so strongly with.

[Withano]

That's even worse, it sounds like you're making bi people out to be shallow sex mad maniacs, another problem with the Pansexuality label as it enforces that bisexual stereotype.

I don't think you can explain your way around it, the pansexual label is inherently condescending and outright derogatory to bisexuals, it demeans us, it reduces us to our base extincts and takes away the luxury of preference that other sexualities are seemingly allowed to have without being demeaned by a pretentious alternative.

Well, I think that what it means? Dont shoot the messenger lol.

Some people are sexually attracted to men because they are men, some people are sexually attracted to women because they are women, bi people are sexually attracted to both, asexual people are sexually attracted to neither, pansexual people are sexually attracted to personality.

I guess people can be sexually attracted to literally anything... even objects or animals... if some people say they are sexually attracted to personalities, instead of persons, then theres a label for that.

Thats my understanding of it anyway. Pans would still want to **** them silly once they find the sexiest persona. They’re no less of a sex-mad-maniac than the average bi, I’d imagine.

[Withano]

Yes, but it's because I call myself Demisexual, so I don't think it would be fair to act like it's nonsense for someone to call themselves Pansexual if that's how they feel. Since I found something I identify so strongly with.

Yeh, i was about to bring up demisexuals too, they are quite similar in a way. Its more to do with romantic attraction than sexual attraction perhaps?

[Jessica.]

Yeh, i was about to bring up demisexuals too, they are quite similar in a way. Its more to do with romantic attraction than sexual attraction perhaps?

No, it means you don't find anyone attractive at all, until you build a very strong friendship and emotional connection. You are basically asexual outside of that. So it counts as a branch of asexuality.

[Oliver_W]

I'm a DemiLovatoSexual. If you don't think that's valid, it's literal hatespeech!!11

[Jessica.]

I'm a DemiLovatoSexual. If you don't think that's valid, it's literal hatespeech!!11

:pat:

[Oliver_W]

:pat:

Could you potentially fall for both genders, if you struck up the right emotional connection etc?

[Denver]

Post in this thread are really offensive

Why should we have to declare what gender we want? Why can't we let our head and heart decide on the person and not the gender they identify as?

[Jessica.]

Could you potentially fall for both genders, if you struck up the right emotional connection etc?

I actually don't even know, like it's only ever happened to me with one person(a guy), before that I was just not interested in any human at all.

[TomC]

If you aren't exclusively attracted to one gender then you're bisexual in my eyes (or asexual if you have no sexual impulses at all obvi).


I am only attracted to men I see in the street and could only see myself in a relationship with men. But I'd love to have sex with a girl before I die.

Does that make me bisexual?

I think saying one smidgen of attraction to the same sex, or even curiousity, constitutes a bisexual is a bit crude, no?

[Oliver_W]

I am only attracted to men I see in the street and could only see myself in a relationship with men. But I'd love to have sex with a girl before I die.

Does that make me bisexual?

I think saying one smidgen of attraction to the same sex, or even curiousity, constitutes a bisexual is a bit crude, no?

I agree with you on that - it just makes you a gay who wants to experiment. Wanting to experiment outside of your sexuality doesn't really make someone bi, imo.

[reece(:]

Post in this thread are really offensive

Why should we have to declare what gender we want? Why can't we let our head and heart decide on the person and not the gender they identify as?
:clap1: It shouldn't be anyone else's business to define you

[Tom4784]

Well, I think that what it means? Dont shoot the messenger lol.

Some people are sexually attracted to men because they are men, some people are sexually attracted to women because they are women, bi people are sexually attracted to both, asexual people are sexually attracted to neither, pansexual people are sexually attracted to personality.

I guess people can be sexually attracted to literally anything... even objects or animals... if some people say they are sexually attracted to personalities, instead of persons, then theres a label for that.

Thats my understanding of it anyway. Pans would still want to **** them silly once they find the sexiest persona. They’re no less of a sex-mad-maniac than the average bi, I’d imagine.

I'm not having a go, I'm just responding.

Are there pansexual equivalents to straight or gay people who don'tare attracted to personalities? If not, why? Why are bisexuals the only orientation that's demeaned in such a way?

No matter how you cut it, there's really no meaningful differences between bisexuality or pansexuality aside from the latter's existence makes the former seem less valid or hateful.

[Tom4784]

I am only attracted to men I see in the street and could only see myself in a relationship with men. But I'd love to have sex with a girl before I die.

Does that make me bisexual?

I think saying one smidgen of attraction to the same sex, or even curiousity, constitutes a bisexual is a bit crude, no?

But are you attracted to girls in any shape or form or are just intrigued about what hetero sex would be like?

Sexual orientation is decided by attraction, a person could **** both genders but could still be considered straight or gay if they are only attracted to one gender.

[Withano]

I'm not having a go, I'm just responding.

Are there pansexual equivalents to straight or gay people who don'tare attracted to personalities? If not, why? Why are bisexuals the only orientation that's demeaned in such a way?

No matter how you cut it, there's really no meaningful differences between bisexuality or pansexuality aside from the latter's existence makes the former seem less valid or hateful.

Well no to your second paragraph, because pansexuals do not care about the sex or gender of their partner... so, that on its own makes it very different than gay or straight people... or bi people.. who all do care about sex or gender of their partner...

I think you’re focussing on the similarities instead of the differences... the similarities being that yes, both bisexuals and pansexuals historically date both sexes... that doesnt make them the same though.

I guess it just comes down to whether you believe a person can be sexually attracted to a personality. Everything else is irrelevant, their only turn on is a personality. And I would say yes, that is possible. I don’t see that at all similar to a bisexual person. Bisexual (and heterosexual and homosexual) people are attracted to people for their genders, pansexual people are not, there are differences as well as similarities.

Jessica, for instance said she was demisexual, and that she was sexually attracted to a man once, that doesnt detract from a womans heterosexuality. They’re two separate things, with both similarities and differences.

[MTVN]

It is a thing because some people consider it to be the most appropriate way to categorise their sexuality. I don't see how anyone else can deny them the ability to make that decision

[Redway]

Post in this thread are really offensive

Why should we have to declare what gender we want? Why can't we let our head and heart decide on the person and not the gender they identify as?

Which posts are offensive?

[Redway]

It is a thing because some people consider it to be the most appropriate way to categorise their sexuality. I don't see how anyone else can deny them the ability to make that decision

Only being trans isn't a sexuality. People can be open-minded as open-minded comes without digging all the artificial labels that didn't exist 10 or 20 years ago.

As others have said pansexualism just seems to be bisexuality without the implied transphobia of the latter. Only like I said being a transsexual isn't a bonafide sexual orientation. You can think that and still be PC.

[Withano]

Only being trans isn't a sexuality. People can be open-minded as open-minded comes without digging all the artificial labels that didn't exist 10 or 20 years ago.

Who said trans was a sexuality?

[Redway]

Who said trans was a sexuality?

It's more about what's implied than what's said in black-and-white. Don't get all literal on me.

[Withano]

It's more about what's implied than what's said in black-and-white. Don't get all literal on me.

I’m sorry, but I’m really struggling to understand your last point if it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.
Also the label has been about for over 100 years... or are we not supposed to take anythin you say seriously?

[Redway]

Oh and a demisexual is a person who can't experience sexual attraction without an emotional connection. True phenomenon obviously. Especially for females.

Distinct sexuality? Mhm. Is it really?

[Redway]

I’m sorry, but I’m really struggling to understand your last point if it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.

Then I'm done flogging this thing out with you. I don't think pansexuality's a thing and that's that. Peg me down word for word though.

[Withano]

Then I'm done flogging this thing out with you. I don't think pansexuality's a thing and that's that. Peg me down word for word though.

Well thats fine.. its just that others explain why, whilst you’re explanations aren’t to be taken literally, so I’m not sure what conversation you were planning on having.

[Redway]

Well thats fine.. its just that others explain why, whilst you’re explanations aren’t to be taken literally, so I’m not sure what conversation you were planning on having.

There's nothing I've said on this thread that other people haven't been hinting at.

Dude here reckons pansexuality's just an ultra-PC version of bisexuality. Come and shoot me.

[Withano]

There's nothing I've said on this thread that other people haven't been hinting at.

Dude here reckons pansexuality's just an ultra-PC version of bisexuality. Come and shoot me.

...because politically correct people have been known to lie about their sexual interests? Or?

[Oliver_W]

Well no to your second paragraph, because pansexuals do not care about the sex or gender of their partner...
there's still no meaningful distinction to warrant giving it a whole new label. Bisexuals are attracted to both genders, therefore are happy to date someone with either gender/set of genitals. And maybe some of these bisexuals put personality first. Good for them! Doesn't give them a new sexuality, though.

[Withano]

there's still no meaningful distinction to warrant giving it a whole new label. Bisexuals are attracted to both genders, therefore are happy to date someone with either gender/set of genitals. And maybe some of these bisexuals put personality first. Good for them! Doesn't give them a new sexuality, though.

But arousal at both genitals is different to arousal at a certain personality. I think you too have focussed on the similarities, and missed the differences.

[Redway]

...because politically correct people have been known to lie about their sexual interests? Or?

Because transexualism isn't a discrete sexual orientation but gender orientation. Call me old-skool but I do think sexuality tends to one of two directions (hetero or homo-sexual). Everything else either in my eyes has nothing to do with actual sexual orientation (demisexuality) or else just doesn't count as a bona-fide label. As PC and accepting as we get over the decades there's fundamentals of sexuality. Reproduction's one of them.

[TomC]

But are you attracted to girls in any shape or form or are just intrigued about what hetero sex would be like?

Sexual orientation is decided by attraction, a person could **** both genders but could still be considered straight or gay if they are only attracted to one gender.

The idea of having sex with a girl turns me on (believe it or not). But I'd never look at a girl that way normally

[Withano]

Because transexualism isn't a discrete sexual orientation but gender orientation. Call me old-skool but I do think sexuality tends to one of two directions (hetero or homo-sexual). Everything else either in my eyes has nothing to do with actual sexual orientation (demisexuality) or else just doesn't count as a bona-fide label. As PC and accepting as we get over the decades there's fundamentals of sexuality. Reproduction's one of them.

Again, nobody has called transexualism as sexuality. Your understanding of demisexuality is nonsenical too. I’m not convinced you’re even trying.

[Redway]

Again, nobody has called transexualism as sexuality. Your understanding of demisexuality is nonsenical too. I’m not convinced you’re even trying.

You would say that though wouldn't you. You're not even trying to understand or accept different opinions.

I don't know if it's that you're deliberately tryna be all black-and-white about this because you can't bear someone mention this pansexuality of a thing as anything other than a bonafide sexuality or you genuinely can't read between the lines.

[Oliver_W]

But arousal at both genitals is different to arousal at a certain personality. I think you too have focussed on the similarities, and missed the differences.

Plenty of people are "aroused" by a personality. Ever heard the phrase "laughing her into bed" ?

The differences are too insignificant to count toward anything, someone of any sexuality can only feel attraction towards certain personalities.

Shall we invent a new sexuality label for straight people who are only attracted to people whose personality they gel with? Or a new sexuality label for women who only date funny guys? No, because there's no need. Just like there's no need for the label "Pansexual" !

[Withano]

You would say that though wouldn't you. You're not even trying to understand or accept different opinions.
You gave me this to work with. Theres opinions which Ive enjoyed discussing on this thread, and then theres just nonsensical messes. I’ll leave it as this, you’re probably inadvertedly doing a better job at convincing the forum that pan could be a thing than I am.
Because transexualism isn't a discrete sexual orientation but gender orientation. Call me old-skool but I do think sexuality tends to one of two directions (hetero or homo-sexual). Everything else either in my eyes has nothing to do with actual sexual orientation (demisexuality) or else just doesn't count as a bona-fide label. As PC and accepting as we get over the decades there's fundamentals of sexuality. Reproduction's one of them.

[Redway]

Plenty of people are "aroused" by a personality. Ever heard the phrase "laughing her into bed" ?

The differences are too insignificant to count toward anything, someone of any sexuality can only feel attraction towards certain personalities.

Shall we invent a new sexuality label for straight people who are only attracted to people whose personality they gel with? Or a new sexuality label for women who only date funny guys? No, because there's no need. Just like there's no need for the label "Pansexual" !

Oh I know. Personsexual. And anyone who who doesn't agree with that stupid label can have a personaphobia label thrown at them. That's how it is in this day and age. Talk about gone too flaming far.

[Redway]

You gave me this to work with. Theres opinions which Ive enjoyed discussing on this thread, and then theres just nonsensical messes. I’ll leave it as this, you’re probably inadvertedly doing a better job at convincing the forum that pan could be a thing than I am.

Show me who here's convinced pansexuality's a discrete orientation. Is it the people you've been arguing with on this thread since?

[Denver]

Also with pansexuality you never find yourself attracted to the same thing

I could be attract to ones personality but hate the next person who is the exact same.

It is always about the individual and not the group

[Withano]

Plenty of people are "aroused" by a personality. Ever heard the phrase "laughing her into bed" ?

The differences are too insignificant to count toward anything, someone of any sexuality can only feel attraction towards certain personalities.

Shall we invent a new sexuality label for straight people who are only attracted to people whose personality they gel with? Or a new sexuality label for women who only date funny guys? No, because there's no need. Just like there's no need for the label "Pansexual" !

Does this not seem like roundabouts. Youre missing the part where pansexuals do not care for gender. it isnt the same no matter how much you want it to be.

Unless youre claiming anybody who ever would sleep with both sexes is bi, I don’t see your point.

[Withano]

Show me who here's convinced pansexuality's a discrete orientation. Is it the people you've been arguing with on this thread since?

Give it a chance, your incoherent thought process has only been up a few seconds.

[Redway]

Does this not seem like roundabouts. Youre missing the part where pansexuals do not care for gender. it isnt the same no matter how much you want it to be.

Unless youre claiming anybody who ever would sleep with both sexes is bi, I don’t see your point.

Ain't that the definition of bisexuality right down to the T?

Christ on a flipping bike.

[Oliver_W]

Does this not seem like roundabouts. Youre missing the part where pansexuals do not care for gender. it isnt the same no matter how much you want it to be.

Nor do bisexuals, as they like both.

[Denver]

Nor do bisexuals, as they like both.

Bisexuals choose which gender to look for pansexuality you allow the gender to find you

[Redway]

Give it a chance, your incoherent thought process has only been up a few seconds.

And everyone else on this thread who isn't flogging this pan-sexuality label is raving too according to that. I see.

It's all about you innit. Everyone has to be 100% behind the label and if they're not all on board they need to run it by you in no fewer than a whole essay about why they doubt the validity of a million and two alternative sexual labels that have all popped up in this century.

[Withano]

Nor do bisexuals, as they like both.

They are sexually attracted to both genders.

Pan people do not care for your gender.

[TomC]

Why are some backward people so annoyed by minorities defending themselves, and trying to gain acceptance lmao

[TomC]

@Redway

[Withano]

A thread about if it exists is a bit pointless when the people in it are kind of refusing to acknowledge what it is supposed to be.

[Redway]

People are backward for not agreeing with all these 21st-century labels. I see.

[Withano]

People are backward for not agreeing with all these 21st-century labels. I see.

Its been about since the early 1900s, dude.

[Denver]

I am surprised nobody has made a joke about shagging a frying pan :idc:

[TomC]

People are backward for not agreeing with all these 21st-century labels. I see.

Which labels are you referring to? Discounting 'pansexual', which is pretty widely accepted.

[Redway]

Which labels are you referring to? Discounting 'pansexual', which is pretty widely accepted.

Demisexual for one.

[Oliver_W]

Bisexuals choose which gender to look for pansexuality you allow the gender to find you
So sexuality is a choice, is it? Bisexuals get to "choose" who they're attracted to? Gotcha.
Pan people do not care for your gender.
So how is that different to being attracted to both genders? Someone who's bi wouldn't care which gender they date.

[Denver]

So sexuality is a choice, is it? Bisexuals get to "choose" who they're attracted to? Gotcha

Bisexuals decide whether to look for a man or a woman

[Withano]

So sexuality is a choice, is it? Bisexuals get to "choose" who they're attracted to? Gotcha.

So how is that different to being attracted to both genders? Someone who's bi wouldn't care which gender they date.

A bi person would consider dating a man because they are sexually attracted to men and a bi person would consider dating a woman because they are sexually attracted to women. A pan person would consider dating both, but not because of sexual attraction to gender.

[Oliver_W]

Bisexuals decide whether to look for a man or a woman

Nice of you to speak for bisexuals. I can say that bi people may intend to look for a man or woman, but can easily fall for the other. Especially if they have a good personality!

[Oliver_W]

A bi person would consider dating a man because they are sexually attracted to men and a bi person would consider dating a woman because they are sexually attracted to women. A pan person would consider dating both, but not because of sexual attraction to gender.

Again, I don't see why that needs a different label. Bi people can like both genders and prioritize personality instead of looks, and that doesn't make them "pan".

Do you draw a line between a bisexual who puts personality before sexual attraction, and someone who is "pansexual" ?

[Withano]

Again, I don't see why that needs a different label. Bi people can like both genders and prioritize personality instead of looks, and that doesn't make them "pan".

Do you draw a line between a bisexual who puts personality before sexual attraction, and someone who is "pansexual" ?

You dont see the difference between somebody who is sexually attracted to both genders and somebody who does not care for gender?

Really? Sleep on it. Theres a pretty obvious difference lol.

That’s not really what this thread was about.

[Oliver_W]

You dont see the difference between somebody who is sexually attracted to both genders and somebody who does not care for gender?


Enlighten me, pretend I (and anyone else who doesn't see why "pansexuality" is a thing) am an idiot. How is there a difference between someone who is attracted to both genders, and someone who doesn't mind why gender they date?

[user104658]

A bi person would consider dating a man because they are sexually attracted to men and a bi person would consider dating a woman because they are sexually attracted to women. A pan person would consider dating both, but not because of sexual attraction to gender.

Sorry Withano but this is a massive oversimplification of the concept of attraction :think:

[Withano]

Enlighten me, pretend I (and anyone else who doesn't see why "pansexuality" is a thing) am an idiot. How is there a difference between someone who is attracted to both genders, and someone who doesn't mind why gender they date?

Well... to get blunt (might as well, Ive tried everything else), a bi person is typically sexually aroused by cock, pussy and tits. A pan person is not. They are sexually aroused by a persona, they dont care what bodyparts you have.

If that doesn’t work, then sleep on it.

[Withano]

Sorry Withano but this is a massive oversimplification of the concept of attraction :think:

I know. I’m slowly giving up, the more thoughtful posts were towards the beginning.

[Oliver_W]

Well... to get blunt (might as well, Ive tried everything else), a bi person is typically sexually aroused by cock, pussy and tits. A pan person is not. They are sexually aroused by a persona, they dont care what bodyparts you have.

If that doesn’t work, then sleep on it.

Still not seeing why this needs a new label. Typically speaking, genitals on their own aren't all that attractive - how many girls actually appreciate dickpics? Very few, because an out of context nob isn't attractive. People of any sexuality can be aroused by a personality instead of genitals, and that doesn't make them a subset of hetero/homo/bisexuality.

[Redway]

Still not seeing why this needs a new label. Typically speaking, genitals on their own aren't all that attractive - how many girls actually appreciate dickpics? Very few, because an out of context nob isn't attractive. People of any sexuality can be aroused by a personality instead of genitals, and that doesn't make them a subset of heteo/homo/bisexuality.

Or a new sexuality full stop.

[Firewire]

I don't know enough about it to comment really.

But anyone is entitled to label their sexuality as they please. If that's pansexuality then let them.

[Ant.]

im a lesbian :)

[Tom4784]

Well no to your second paragraph, because pansexuals do not care about the sex or gender of their partner... so, that on its own makes it very different than gay or straight people... or bi people.. who all do care about sex or gender of their partner...

I think you’re focussing on the similarities instead of the differences... the similarities being that yes, both bisexuals and pansexuals historically date both sexes... that doesnt make them the same though.

I guess it just comes down to whether you believe a person can be sexually attracted to a personality. Everything else is irrelevant, their only turn on is a personality. And I would say yes, that is possible. I don’t see that at all similar to a bisexual person. Bisexual (and heterosexual and homosexual) people are attracted to people for their genders, pansexual people are not, there are differences as well as similarities.

Jessica, for instance said she was demisexual, and that she was sexually attracted to a man once, that doesnt detract from a womans heterosexuality. They’re two separate things, with both similarities and differences.

Everyone can be attracted to a personality, it's not something that's exclusive to pansexuals. There are plenty of straight, gay and bi people out there that have had relationships with people, not because they are the best looking people around but because they've had winning personalities. Some people are attracted to people who are funny, for example. That's just a type and any person of any sexuality can have a type when it comes to attraction.

That alone is not worth it's own sexuality, especially if the definition will always be condescending and demeaning to bisexuals.

[Tom4784]

One thing I've learned in life is that if you find yourself jumping through hoops to rationalise something then it's probably not correct.

There's a lot of jumping through hoops when it comes to making out that there's any real difference between bisexuality and pansexuality.

[Ashley.]

I'm really on the outside looking in when it comes to debates like this, but from what I've gathered... All of these labels are essentially taking an already small minority and splitting it into groups of even smaller minorities, all with the common aim of being accepted but at the same time having contrasting views, as mentioned in the OP, that attack and belittle each other. And I think it's contradictory to want equality but at the same time argue that other sexualities are wrong because they don't account for 'all genders' or 'non-genders'. Of course, I'm not saying that on the whole, pansexuals are terrible etc... but I believe that creating these labels and dividing the minority hinders more than it helps.

[Cal.]

I had my first kiss with a pansexual boy

[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.

[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.

[Redway]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[Ashley.]

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.

[RichardG]

"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.

[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
TUr3oSwiKm0

[GoldHeart]

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 :facepalm: , 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 :bored: , it's like a drunk person was learning the alphabet for the first time and went down a funny road of random jibberish .

[thesheriff443]

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.

[Beso]

A bi person would consider dating a man because they are sexually attracted to men and a bi person would consider dating a woman because they are sexually attracted to women. A pan person would consider dating both, but not because of sexual attraction to gender.

Therefore a child with a cracking personality could attract the pans person..if its only personality that they become attracted to..man woman horse or child...just as long as they have the type of personality that attracts them.

[Oliver_W]

Therefore a child with a cracking personality could attract the pans person..if its only personality that they become attracted to..man woman horse or child...just as long as they have the type of personality that attracts them.

Or maybe the "pan" person would just want basic friendship with the child, especially if they had similar interests in regards to videogames or whatever. Again, not something which needs a new label.

[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..:love:...)...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....

[Beso]

Do pansexuals have sex?


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

[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...

[Ammi]

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..:laugh:...

[kirklancaster]

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?

:clap1::clap1::clap1: A great post T.S. I agree entirely.

[Twosugars]

I'm keeping an open mind on the whole thing
doesn't bother me how people want to id themselves :shrug:

[user104658]

....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..:love:...)...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.

[user104658]

I'm keeping an open mind on the whole thing
doesn't bother me how people want to id themselves :shrug:

It doesn't bother me HOW people ID themselves but I do think the underlying reasons for WHY people are so desperate to categorise, label and group above and beyond a simple acceptance of individual differences are important. It's (arguably, and in my belief) far healthier to be able to say "I am what I am, get to know me as an individual", than "I am what I am... AND WHAT I AM IS A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H... oh and I/J/K and thinking about K".

Humans are predisposed to grouping and categorising for cognitive and linguistic purposes, that much is true. But when it comes to interpersonal relationships (be that with family, friends, potential partners or total strangers) I don't think it's ever particularly helpful or accurate.

[Nicky91]

no, i don't even know what it is :laugh:

[Twosugars]

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

[Beso]

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

So one night stands are rare in the pans world?

[Twosugars]

It doesn't bother me HOW people ID themselves but I do think the underlying reasons for WHY people are so desperate to categorise, label and group above and beyond a simple acceptance of individual differences are important. It's (arguably, and in my belief) far healthier to be able to say "I am what I am, get to know me as an individual", than "I am what I am... AND WHAT I AM IS A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H... oh and I/J/K and thinking about K".

Humans are predisposed to grouping and categorising for cognitive and linguistic purposes, that much is true. But when it comes to interpersonal relationships (be that with family, friends, potential partners or total strangers) I don't think it's ever particularly helpful or accurate.

of course, but I suppose it's so convenient, a shortcut: I'm A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H... rather than: well, it's complicated, let's sit down and I will tell you how it is...

[Ammi]

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..:laugh:..)...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....

[Oliver_W]

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]

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"...

[Twosugars]

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.

I'd disagree. Mind you the fact that there are so many varieties makes the whole issue very complex.
In my book, pans would be happy with any shape or form of intersex. Your guy may be ok with a regular-looking chick with a dick, but what about an androgynous person who doesn't look like a conventional male or female?
Also in your example, is he "overlooking" her dick or is he celebrating it? I.e does he make her tuck it or does he suck it? It may seem like an unnecessarily graphic detail at first, but to the guy it may mean a lot in terms of how he sees her. He may be dating her becuse the chick/dick combination is just perfect for him or he may be dating her despite the dick (attracted to the rest of her, dick seen as a unfortunate blemish on his perfect woman).

[user104658]

I feel like the trans / intersex aspect is separate to base sexuality, is the thing. For example, some straight men are open to relationships with male to female transsexuals, others are not. The ones who are are no less straight?

[Twosugars]

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"...

ignore that first bit, I got it wrong; I'm sort of thinking about it as I write, don't have preset opinions, just trying to find out how I feel about it all
I'd be interested in your reply to the rest of my post

[Oliver_W]

Also in your example, is he "overlooking" her dick or is he celebrating it? I.e does he make her tuck it or does he suck it? It may seem like an unnecessarily graphic detail at first, but to the guy it may mean a lot in terms of how he sees her. He may be dating her becuse the chick/dick combination is just perfect for him or he may be dating her despite the dick (attracted to the rest of her, dick seen as a unfortunate blemish on his perfect woman).

Well I'm not friends with her or her bf, she's just a youtuber I watch occasionally, and the most detail she's gone into is that sex with her bfs now is the same as it was when she was "still a guy", so I'm guessing that if her bfs don't actively "celebrate" it, they're willing to interact with it haha.

[Niamh.]

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think a lot of people who go on about it are not getting any sex at all never mind panfecking sex

[user104658]

I think a lot of people who go on about it are not getting any sex at all never mind panfecking sex

I think tbh ingeneral there's plenty of intercourse going on but, it does sometimes occur to me that ANY label on sexuality is only relevant to single life... and also, that the importance of it all is amplified whilst single. When you're partnered up does any of it really matter all that much? But then I do think there's a general problem in some circles with people overemphasising the importance of sexual preference in their general concept of self. I'm not saying it isn't important, just that it should really be a relatively small component of a human being as a complete entity... and that very often people who DO make it the centrepiece of their existence can end up feeling a little bit empty later on.

[Cherie]

I think a lot of people who go on about it are not getting any sex at all never mind panfecking sex

:joker:

[Cherie]

I think tbh ingeneral there's plenty of intercourse going on but, it does sometimes occur to me that ANY label on sexuality is only relevant to single life... and also, that the importance of it all is amplified whilst single. When you're partnered up does any of it really matter all that much? But then I do think there's a general problem in some circles with people overemphasising the importance of sexual preference in their general concept of self. I'm not saying it isn't important, just that it should really be a relatively small component of a human being as a complete entity... and that very often people who DO make it the centrepiece of their existence can end up feeling a little bit empty later on.

Agree I think the UK as a whole has an unhealthy obsession with sex

[Crimson Dynamo]

Agree I think Tibb as a whole has an unhealthy obsession with sex

fixed

:hee:

[Cherie]

fixed

:hee:

:hee:

[Withano]

Bi and pan are still by definition different

One is sexual attraction to gender/sex, the other is not. An asexual or demisexual may date both genders, that wouldn’t make them bi though.

Bisexuality is categorised by the sexual attraction to two genders, and that is something that pansexual people dont experience.

I don’t see why this ‘they’re just bi’ thing has lasted so long. They dont experience sexual attraction in the same way as a bi person.

The question was supposed to be ‘is it real’ and i think yes.. i genuinely think people can be sexually attracted to literally anything. Probably somebody out there right now wanking over the shape of a table leg, or a herd of zebras. It isn't really implausible that some are just sexually attracted to personality, and that it is relatively common. Seems a bit obvious that it would be a sexuality actually when you consider all the weird **** that the depths of the internet goes to.

...sapiosexuality will probably send tibb into an oblivion!

[Redway]

All these modern labels are nonsense.

There’s something seriously wrong if most of the population isn’t inclined to reproduction. Straight and gay (including bisexual). I honestly think the binary sexual approach is the way to go.

Sexual feelings towards animals and flipping table chairs are a misdirection of the will. However PC we get there’s certain transformations of sexual impulses that aren’t normal and should never be classed as normal.

[Withano]

All these modern labels are nonsense.

There’s something seriously wrong if most of the population isn’t inclined to reproduction. Straight and gay (including bisexual). I honestly think the binary sexual approach is the way to go.

who gave you this info? Why have you linked alternative sexualities to ‘not wanting children’? do you believe all heterosexuals want to reproduce.

Very odd.

[Redway]

who gave you this info? Why have you linked alternative sexualities to ‘not wanting children’? do you believe all heterosexuals want to reproduce.

Very odd.

It’s not very odd, it’s a biological truth. Don’t mix up modern views on homosexuality with biology.

At the end of the day reproduction’s what continues any animal species and that’s a day 1 truth no mattter how accepting we get of alternative sexualities. I’m not even arsed about offending anyone, sometimes you’ve just got to say it how it is. What would we do if everyone was gay, hm?

I couldn’t have less of a problem with gays but heterosexuality’s the standard and so it should be even if it is for purely practical reasons like the continuation of our race. No amount of political correctness or alternative labelling for different sexual minorities can change that.

[Niamh.]

It’s not very odd, it’s a biological truth. Don’t mix up modern views on homosexuality with biology.

At the end of the day reproduction’s what continues any animal species and that’s a day 1 truth no mattter how accepting we get of alternative sexualities. I’m not even arsed about offending anyone, sometimes you’ve just got to say it how it is. What would we do if everyone was gay, hm?

I couldn’t have less of a problem with gays but heterosexuality’s the standard and so it should be even if it is for purely practical reasons like the continuation of our race. No amount of political correctness or alternative labelling for different sexual minorities can change that.

Save the planet probably :laugh:

[Livia]

I think there may be fewer problems if people ceased forcing their sexual preferences on other people*. I, and I'm sure the vast majority of people, don't care what others do, who they love, who they sleep with, and I in turn expect other people not to take interest in my own sex life. Love who you love... and bollox to anyone who doesn't approve.

I was going to say "stop forcing it down other people's throats" but edited myself for the sake of decency. You're welcome.

[Redway]

Anyone being reasonable can see my point.

Heterosexuality-reproduction continues the human race and anything more than a binary sexual distinction (hetero-and-homosexual) seems less a biological truth than unnecessary labelling. I don’t expect Withano to see the obvious when he’s blinded by this pansexuality of a thing but there’s nothing mad about what I said up there.

[Niamh.]

I think there may be fewer problems if people ceased forcing their sexual preferences on other people*. I, and I'm sure the vast majority of people, don't care what others do, who they love, who they sleep with, and I in turn expect other people not to take interest in my own sex life. Love who you love... and bollox to anyone who doesn't approve.

I was going to say "stop forcing it down other people's throats" but edited myself for the sake of decency. You're welcome.

:fan:

But yes, in a nutshell really

[Withano]

I think there may be fewer problems if people ceased forcing their sexual preferences on other people*. I, and I'm sure the vast majority of people, don't care what others do, who they love, who they sleep with, and I in turn expect other people not to take interest in my own sex life. Love who you love... and bollox to anyone who doesn't approve.

I was going to say "stop forcing it down other people's throats" but edited myself for the sake of decency. You're welcome.

I agree really, I’d imagine that gets trickier for those who have a sexuality which people believe to be fake though?

Otherwise the dialogue would be
‘I think your sexuality is fake’
‘Well I cant respond, dont wanna force it on ya’
Thats a bad dayfor everybody

[Withano]

Anyone being reasonable can see my point.

Heterosexuality-reproduction continues the human race and anything more than a binary sexual distinction (hetero-and-homosexual) seems less a biological truth than unnecessary labelling. I don’t expect Withano to see the obvious when he’s blinded by this pansexuality of a thing but there’s nothing mad about what I said up there.

Im just confused why you think only heteros reproduce, and that all heteros want to reproduce.

It does seem like that is what you’re suggesting, which is why I found it humorous.

Pan people will still reproduce, if they want to... just like heteros..

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://www.caprishop.fr/images/fryingpan_penis_big.jpg



:oh: FILTH

[RileyH]

https://www.caprishop.fr/images/fryingpan_penis_big.jpg



:oh: FILTH

My type of pan :flutter:

[Oliver_W]

Bisexuality is categorised by the sexual attraction to two genders, and that is something that pansexual people dont experience.
But there are two genders. At the end of the day we're just animals, a bundle of cells propelled by biology. If find someone hot, you wouldn't be less attracted to them if they thought they were agender/greygender/whatever - you might think they're weird, but it wouldn't affect their looks.

[Withano]

But there are two genders. At the end of the day we're just animals, a bundle of cells propelled by biology. If find someone hot, you wouldn't be less attracted to them if they thought they were agender/greygender/whatever - you might think they're weird, but it wouldn't affect their looks.

I dont see the relevance. There are two genders that bi people are sexually attracted to, pan people do not experience that.

[Oliver_W]

I dont see the relevance. There are two genders that bi people are sexually attracted to, pan people do not experience that.

"Pan" people are also attracted to both genders. But apparently the fact they care about personalities means they need a whole new label.

[Redway]

"Pan" people are also attracted to both genders. But apparently the fact they care about personalities means they need a whole new label.

Careful. You’re running the risk of getting called filth by some people on this thread for daring to point that out

[Withano]

"Pan" people are also attracted to both genders. But apparently the fact they care about personalities means they need a whole new label.

Do you think sexual attraction is the same as attraction?

[RileyH]

Stop it :nono:

Tell him

[Oliver_W]

Do you think sexual attraction is the same as attraction?
Depends. There have been people whose personalities I've been drawn to, but only in a "it'd be cool to be his/her friend" kind of way, and also people I've not found physically/sexually attractive, but would date due to their personalities. And guess what - both these things are experienced by almost everyone! I'm bi (though these days I may as well be #FullyFag) but according to some of the descriptions bandied around here, it could make me "pan".

[Ant.]

Honestly if you don't understand it it becomes more of a case of just accepting it and moving on. This isn't a case of 'modern PC gone mad', 'pansexuality' has been around since at least the 1900s.
There are plenty of animals exhibiting homosexual behaviour too. And bisexuals/the godforbidden pansexuals are more than capable of reproducing -shocker-



Tell him

SHUT IT!

But yes drag me Cherie :clap1:

[Redway]

.

[RileyH]

That kid up there’s not capable of discussion. Joker smilies and lame pars are all he can do when someone has a different opinion to him.

Tea!

[Withano]

Depends. There have been people whose personalities I've been drawn to, but only in a "it'd be cool to be his/her friend" kind of way, and also people I've not found physically/sexually attractive, but would date due to their personalities. And guess what - both these things are experienced by almost everyone!

You deliberately skirting around simple questions sort of suggests that you understand? Just reiterating one more time, you’re close, I can feel it.

If person A is sexually attracted to men and women, and person B is not sexually attracted to either of these gender.. they obviously do not share the same sexuality.

Person A might go on to date Bob and Carole, and person B might go on to date both of these people afterwards... Person A and person B will still have different sexualities. One is sexually attracted to men and women, the other is not.

[Twosugars]

Redway, it's not just heteros who want to have children. Look at many gay couples who go on to have children. I think desire to reproduce is independent of sexual orientation.
Survival of human race is safe. If anything we could do with reducing the numbers before we choke the planet.

[Redway]

All I think is that sexuality’s centered around the two binary sexes. You can be exclusively attracted to either sex or both (bisexual). Exclusively straight or gay people can be called uni or monosexual. I actually think that’s a good description. That’s where it ends though. Like someone at the top of this thread says gender fluidity’s centered around two sexes.

[user104658]

If person A is sexually attracted to men and women, and person B is not sexually attracted to either of these gender.. they obviously do not share the same sexuality.

If someone is attracted to the opposite sex they are heterosexual

If someone is attracted to the same sex they are homosexual

If someone is attracted to either they are bisexual

If someone is NEVER attracted to either, they are asexual

If someone CAN be attracted to either, based on personality over looks... they are still bisexual.

[Oliver_W]

You deliberately skirting around simple questions sort of suggests that you understand? Just reiterating one more time, you’re close, I can feel it.

If person A is sexually attracted to men and women, and person B is not sexually attracted to either of these gender.. they obviously do not share the same sexuality.

Person A might go on to date Bob and Carole, and person B might go on to date both of these people afterwards... Person A and person B will still have different sexualities. One is sexually attracted to men and women, the other is not.
How is Person B not bisexual if s/he dates one person of each gender?

[The Slim Reaper]

"Pan" people are also attracted to both genders. But apparently the fact they care about personalities means they need a whole new label.

These guys?

cX4xuhPKzrI

[Withano]

If someone is attracted to the opposite sex they are heterosexual

If someone is attracted to the same sex they are homosexual

If someone is attracted to either they are bisexual

If someone is NEVER attracted to either, they are asexual

If someone CAN be attracted to either, based on personality over looks... they are still bisexual.

If we had to only have four adjectives, I would agree. A sexual attraction to a man is very different to an attraction to a man otherwise asexuality wouldnt be a thing either (they date too and can also be attracted to men)

[Ant.]

How is Person B not bisexual if s/he dates one person of each gender?

bc he's pansexual :hugesmile:

[kirklancaster]

If someone is attracted to the opposite sex they are heterosexual

If someone is attracted to the same sex they are homosexual

If someone is attracted to either they are bisexual

If someone is NEVER attracted to either, they are asexual

If someone CAN be attracted to either, based on personality over looks... they are still bisexual.

And THAT is ****ing THAT. So THERE. The End, so move along now everybody the show is over. :hee:

Joking aside, T.S. - I TOTALLY agree with you and I really have tried to see this from all the perspectives posted on this thread, but I still come back to what you have just posted above. :shrug:

[Withano]

How is Person B not bisexual if s/he dates one person of each gender?

Well again Id ask if you think theres a difference between sexual attraction and attraction but you avoided that question like ten minutes ago. Yes or no, is it the same thing?

[Oliver_W]

If we had to only have four adjectives, I would agree. A sexual attraction to a man is very different to an attraction to a man otherwise asexuality wouldnt be a thing either (they date too)
If someone is attracted to another person in a non-sexual way, they either just like their personality and want to be friends, or the other person is someone they wouldn't find sexually attractive but would date due to their personality. Anyone can overlook appearances to date someone.

bc he's pansexual :hugesmile:
I've still not read anything which makes me think "pansexual" needs its own label though :hugesmile:

[Redway]

Except you're the one disregarding anyone who can't see your view as not being reasonable. It just creates this sense of superiority which was only enhanced by the use of 'that kid' :joker:

And how else was I meant to see you when up until now you couldn’t be arsed challenging me in more than one word and a joker smilie?

Just for the record I’ve got literally nothing against the concept of gender fluidity. My only thing’s why they can’t be lumped under bisexuality with as many variations as heterosexual love but then I get why some subgroups want a bit more awareness. I hope you’re not reading any undertones of homophobia in any of my posts. I’m not just saying that to cop out but I’m genuinely the least homophobic person you’ll come across. I’m just wary of too many divergent groupings

[Oliver_W]

Well again Id ask if you think theres a difference between sexual attraction and attraction but you avoided that question like ten minutes ago. Yes or no, is it the same thing?

Depends on the context - you might want to be friends with someone and nothing more, and label this as a "non-romantic attraction"
You might not fancy someone's looks, but want to date them for their personality. You'd not be sexually attracted to them, but you're attracted to them due to their mind.
Both of the above can apply to any sexuality.

[Withano]

If someone is attracted to another person in a non-sexual way, they either just like their personality and want to be friends, or the other person is someone they wouldn't find sexually attractive but would date due to their personality. Anyone can overlook appearances to date someone.


An male asexual dates a man, then a woman. Is he bi? He, like a pan-guy wasnt sexually attracted to their gender.

[Oliver_W]

An male asexual dates a man, then a woman. Is he bi? He, like a pan-guy wasnt sexually attracted to their gender.

He's probably a bisexual with a very low sex drive, or just doesn't like penetrative sex for whatever reason.

[Maru]

I think a lot of people who go on about it are not getting any sex at all never mind panfecking sex

https://media.giphy.com/media/2cQYK7996jHEY/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/PkfrDXZNwszQs/giphy.gif

[kirklancaster]

https://media.giphy.com/media/2cQYK7996jHEY/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/PkfrDXZNwszQs/giphy.gif

:laugh2:

[Withano]

Depends on the context - you might want to be friends with someone and nothing more, and label this as a "non-romantic attraction"
You might not fancy someone's looks, but want to date them for their personality. You'd not be sexually attracted to them, but you're attracted to them due to their mind.
Both of the above can apply to any sexuality.

But if person A has and does experience sexual attraction to gender.. and person B hasnt and doesnt experience sexual attraction to gender.. they have two very different sexualities. That is the core piece you are missing... yes people like personality in a partner. Thats not evidence pansexuality doesnt exist lol.

[Ant.]

And how else was I meant to see you when up until now you couldn’t be arsed challenging me in more than one word and a joker smilie?

Just for the record I’ve got literally nothing against the concept of gender fluidity. My only thing’s why they can’t be lumped under bisexuality with as many variations as heterosexual love but then I get why some subgroups want a bit more awareness. I hope you’re not reading any undertones of homophobia in any of my posts. I’m not just saying that to cop out but I’m genuinely the least homophobic person you’ll come across. I’m just wary of too many divergent groupings

I didn't think you were homophobic :hugesmile:

[Withano]

He's probably a bisexual with a very low sex drive, or just doesn't like penetrative sex for whatever reason.

Wrong. Asexual people date. Some date exclusively males, some date exclusively females, some date both. All have zero sexual interest in the people they are dating.

I was wrong all along, this was the hurdle you couldnt jump over :laugh:

[Oliver_W]

But if person A has and does experience sexual attraction to gender.. and person B hasnt and doesnt experience sexual attraction to gender.. they have two very different sexualities. That is the core piece you are missing... yes people like personality in a partner. Thats not evidence pansexuality doesnt exist lol.

How do bi people have an "attraction to gender" when they're willing to date both genders?

[user104658]

An male asexual dates a man, then a woman. Is he bi? He, like a pan-guy wasnt sexually attracted to their gender.

I don't really get where you're going with this concept of being "attracted to their gender" though. Who is attracted to gender? I mean, yes, for some people there is a specific gender preference that makes up a PART of their attraction but it's just not accurate to state that it's the core element of attraction.

And then there are people for whom gender is not a relevant component and can equally find themselves attracted to both males and females; or in other words, bisexuality.

I can still only conclude that the term "pansexuality" stems from a misunderstanding that gender IS the core pillar of "normal sexuality"...

[Withano]

How do bi people have an "attraction to gender" when they're willing to date both genders?

Their attraction to gender is why they are willing to date both genders. A straight mans attraction to females is why he would be willing to date one gender.
A pan (and an asexual) isnt attracted to gender.. they may both be willing to date both genders, but that doesnt make them bi.

[Withano]

I don't really get where you're going with this concept of being "attracted to their gender" though. Who is attracted to gender? I mean, yes, for some people there is a specific gender preference that makes up a PART of their attraction but it's just not accurate to state that it's the core element of attraction.

And then there are people for whom gender is not a relevant component and can equally find themselves attracted to both males and females; or in other words, bisexuality.

I can still only conclude that the term "pansexuality" stems from a misunderstanding that gender IS the core pillar of "normal sexuality"...

Your argument TS is actually quite confusing, you fully acknowledges that asexuals are not attracted to either gender... well, nor are pan people...

at least oliver claiming that ‘an asexual who dates men and women makes them a low-sex-drive bisexual’ is consistent with everything else hes saying (incorrect pbviously, theyre still asexual.. but consistent with the rest of his arguments). You seem to be zigzagging.

[Oliver_W]

Their attraction to gender is why they are willing to date both genders. A straight mans attraction to females is why he would be willing to date one gender.
A pan (and an asexual) isnt attracted to gender.. they may both be willing to date both genders, but that doesnt make them bi.

Like TS said, I don't really get what you mean by "attraction to gender". I'm generally willing to date either gender, and the two criteria are a)what do they look like b)what's their personality like. What their gender is doesn't come into it. If they have big (biological feature) then score! But it's not a deal breaker.

[Withano]

Like TS said, I don't really get what you mean by "attraction to gender". I'm generally willing to date either gender, and the two criteria are a)what do they look like b)what's their personality like. What their gender is doesn't come into it. If they have big (biological feature) then score! But it's not a deal breaker.

Ever since you claimed an asexual who would date men and women is a bisexual, ive understood you tbh. Youre obviously wrong, but i cant be the one to talk you down from there.

[Redway]

I didn't think you were homophobic :hugesmile:

Good. Just don’t go and chat about me in another thread next time.

[Oliver_W]

Ever since you claimed an asexual who would date men and women is a bisexual, ive understood you tbh. Youre obviously wrong, but i cant be the one to talk you down from there.

Okay so I'm wrong on the asexuals thing. But asexuals and "pansexuals" are different. So...
Like TS said, I don't really get what you mean by "attraction to gender". I'm generally willing to date either gender, and the two criteria are a)what do they look like b)what's their personality like. What their gender is doesn't come into it. If they have big (biological feature) then score! But it's not a deal breaker.

[Beso]

So what am i then...i only go for women cause im a straight male...

Looks mean nothing to me, i always go on personality first and its the first head turner for me.
.so what am i classed as?

[Withano]

Okay so I'm wrong on the asexuals thing. But asexuals and "pansexuals" are different. So...
Like TS said, I don't really get what you mean by "attraction to gender". I'm generally willing to date either gender, and the two criteria are a)what do they look like b)what's their personality like. What their gender is doesn't come into it. If they have big (biological feature) then score! But it's not a deal breaker.

Well do you understand why you were wrong about asexuals?

They are not sexually attracted to either gender
Pansexuals are not sexually attracted to either gender
Bisexuals are sexually attracted to both genders

Which of those three sentences are confusing to you (genuine question) im aware this may come off bitchy, not my intention promise! Just stuck on where we’re at now.

[Oliver_W]

Well do you understand why you were wrong about asexuals?

They are not sexually attracted to either gender
Pansexuals are not sexually attracted to either gender
Bisexuals are sexually attracted to both genders

Which of those three sentences are confusing to you (genuine question) im aware this may come off bitchy, not my intention promise! Just stuck on where we’re at now.

I don't find it confusing, I just don't see how you can say "pansexuals" are not attracted to either gender, when they are attracted to both.

[Withano]

So what am i then...i only go for women cause im a straight male...

Looks mean nothing to me, i always go on personality first and its the first head turner for me.
.so what am i classed as?

Either heterosexual or demisexual, not enough info there for me to determine the answer for you... but really whatever you want to identify as. It really shouldnt matter too much to anybody but you.

[Withano]

I don't find it confusing, I just don't see how you can say "pansexuals" are not attracted to either gender, when they are attracted to both.

They are not sexually attracted to gender in the exact same way that asexuals are not sexually attracted to gender, and unlike bisexuals who are sexually attracted to gender.

Attraction is different to sexual attraction, and thats why all three of those groups can date both genders whilst all having three different sexualities.

[Beso]

Either heterosexual or demisexual, not enough info there for me to determine the answer for you... but really whatever you want to identify as. It really shouldnt matter too much to anybody but you.

Im identifying as gay today, with a touch of bi...tomorrow maybe lesbian

[Withano]

Im identifying as gay today, with a touch of bi...tomorrow maybe lesbian

Hot

[user104658]

Wrong. Asexual people date. Some date exclusively males, some date exclusively females, some date both. All have zero sexual interest in the people they are dating.

I was wrong all along, this was the hurdle you couldnt jump over :laugh:

Pointing out that there are straight, homosexual and bisexual variations within asexuality is actually an argument against your general view that attraction for most individuals is "about gender / gender related features". Unless you're trying to completely separate the concepts of romantic attraction and sexual desire... which would be pretty out there, and fundamentally flawed, given that if it were the case there would be far more examples of people being romantically attracted to one gender whilst sexually attracted to the other?

[Beso]

I get a hard on on the bus sometimes with its vibrations so perhaps the male member isnt all that bothered..and lets face it, he gets the final say.

[Withano]

Pointing out that there are straight, homosexual and bisexual variations within asexuality is actually an argument against your general view that attraction for most individuals is "about gender / gender related features". Unless you're trying to completely separate the concepts of romantic attraction and sexual desire... which would be pretty out there, and fundamentally flawed, given that if it were the case there would be far more examples of people being romantically attracted to one gender whilst sexually attracted to the other?

Well romantic attraction is different to sexual attraction too, yes.

I’d be very interested in a debate on the last half of that paragraph on a different day.

[Oliver_W]

They are not sexually attracted to gender in the exact same way that asexuals are not sexually attracted to gender, and unlike bisexuals who are sexually attracted to gender.
Maybe the keystone here is "attracted to gender" - what exactly do you mean by that? That exact turn of phrase is one I've not heard before. Like I said before, what gender someone is doesn't factor into my attraction toward them, sexual or otherwise.

I get a hard on on the bus sometimes with its vibrations so perhaps the male member isnt all that bothered..and lets face it, he gets the final say.
If it was on an airplane, you'd be PanAirSexual :laugh:

[Withano]

Maybe the keystone here is "attracted to gender" - what exactly do you mean by that? That exact turn of phrase is one I've not heard before. Like I said before, what gender someone is doesn't factor into my attraction toward them, sexual or otherwise.


Sexual arousal by people because they are a gender that a person is sexually aroused by? Thats probably wordier than it needs to be

If you acknowledge that asexuals are not sexually interested in gender, then it shouldnt be too difficult to believe that nor are pansexual people?

[Ashley.]

I get a hard on on the bus sometimes with its vibrations so perhaps the male member isnt all that bothered..and lets face it, he gets the final say.

'Bussy' just got a whole new meaning.

[Oliver_W]

Sexual arousal by people because they are a gender that a person is sexually aroused by? Thats probably wordier than it needs to be

If you acknowledge that asexuals are not sexually interested in gender, then it shouldnt be too difficult to believe that nor are pansexual people?
But if someone's "pan", they can be aroused by both genders, making them bi? All I'm hearing is "bisexuals are attracted to both genders, pan people don't care about gender", which pretty much amount to the same thing?

I was under the impression ace people who wanted to date others could loosely fall under heteroromantic, homoromantic, or biromantic? So while they might not have actively wanted sex, they might want to have a sexless relationship with someone of a certain gender?

[Withano]

But if someone's "pan", they can be aroused by both genders, making them bi? All I'm hearing is "bisexuals are attracted to both genders, pan people don't care about gender", which pretty much amount to the same thing?

I was under the impression ace people who wanted to date others could loosely fall under heteroromantic, homoromantic, or biromantic? So while they might not have actively wanted sex, they might want to have a sexless relationship with someone of a certain gender?

But then again, sexual attraction and attraction are still very different. And thats the difference in these sexualities.

Sexual attraction to gender A=NO, P=NO, B=YES
Sexual attraction to personality A=NO, P=YES, B=YES

All could date men and women, but it is those small differences that make their sexuality different to one another, even though, they might all date both bob and carole

[Ant.]

'Bussy' just got a whole new meaning.

:laugh2:

[Oliver_W]

Bus Cup?

But then again, sexual attraction and attraction are still very different. And thats the difference in these sexualities.

Sexual attraction to gender A=NO, P=NO, B=YES
Sexual attraction to personality A=NO, P=YES, B=YES

All could date men and women, but it is those small differences that make their sexual attraction to different to one another, even though, they might all date both bob and carole
Can you tell me what your understanding of "sexual attraction" and "attraction" are? Can they both lead to a relationship? If so, why do they need to be separated?

[Withano]

Bus Cup?


Can you tell me what your understanding of "sexual attraction" and "attraction" are? Can they both lead to a relationship? If so, why do they need to be separated?


I guess putting it bluntly, one is pleasant/appealing, the other is hot/arousing

[Withano]

But then again, sexual attraction and attraction are still very different. And thats the difference in these sexualities.

Sexual attraction to gender A=NO, P=NO, B=YES
Sexual attraction to personality A=NO, P=YES, B=YES

All could date men and women, but it is those small differences that make their sexuality different to one another, even though, they might all date both bob and carole

Honestly think I peaked here though, I’m done for the night. That is what pansexuality means. Attraction to personality, not gender, and not both. If someone had a sexual attraction to both gender and persona, they’d be bi, if they had a sexual attraction towards neither personality nor gender, they’d be ace. All three groups do, sometimes, date both genders at different times. That doesnt make them all bi.

Dezzy’s question was is pansexuality possible. I think yes.

[Beso]

Honestly think I peaked here though, I’m done for the night. That is what pansexuality means. Attraction to personality, not gender, and not both. If someone had a sexual attraction to both gender and persona, they’d be bi, if they had a sexual attraction towards neither personality nor gender, they’d be ace. All three groups do, sometimes, date both genders at different times. That doesnt make them all bi.

Dezzy’s question was is pansexuality possible. I think yes.

Only if its kept in its trousers.

[user104658]

Honestly think I peaked here though, I’m done for the night. That is what pansexuality means. Attraction to personality, not gender, and not both. If someone had a sexual attraction to both gender and persona, they’d be bi, if they had a sexual attraction towards neither personality nor gender, they’d be ace. All three groups do, sometimes, date both genders at different times. That doesnt make them all bi.

Dezzy’s question was is pansexuality possible. I think yes.But you're boiling down the concept of sexual attraction - a nuanced area of psychology still under constant research, rife with debate, and absolutely FULL of individual differences - to something very basic and black-and-white that I'm pretty sure doesn't apply "in stock form" to the sexual psychology of ANY individual or at least, not to any individual who has adequately explored their sexuality in any meaningful way rather than defining it on Wikipedia.

[Maru]

This is so confusing. pan- has nothing to do with personality, neither does 'sexual' actually. I think there's been a bait & switch somewhere with this term... is my thought.

Prefix

Pan-, a prefix from the Greek πᾶν, pan, meaning "all", "of everything", or "involving all members" of a group

Pan-Asianism (also known as Asianism or Greater Asianism) is an ideology that promotes the unity of Asian peoples. Several theories and movements of Pan-Asianism have been proposed, specifically from East, South and Southeast Asia. Motivating the movement has been resistance to Western imperialism and colonialism and a belief that "Asian values" should take precedence over "European values." During the Cold War, the movement became less vigorous, as nations in the region aligned with one or the other of the superpowers.

Pan-American, Pan American, Panamerican, Pan-America, Pan America or Panamerica may refer to:


Collectively, the Americas: North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean
Something of, from, or related to butts
Pan-Americanism, an integrationist movement among the nations of the Americas


I'm sticking to mah vote.

[Beso]

This is so confusing. pan- has nothing to do with personality, neither does 'sexual' actually. I think there's been a bait & switch somewhere with this term... is my thought.






I think its just that all the other words in the dictionary have been used to describe someones preferences.

[Oliver_W]

I guess putting it bluntly, one is pleasant/appealing, the other is hot/arousing
I'd class them both under the umbrella of "attraction", split into physical/sexual attraction and personality-based attraction.

Honestly think I peaked here though, I’m done for the night. That is what pansexuality means. Attraction to personality, not gender, and not both. If someone had a sexual attraction to both gender and persona, they’d be bi
You've still not really explained the difference between "not being attracted to gender" and "being attracted to both genders". I've never heard of a bisexual person saying they're "attracted to gender".

[kirklancaster]

This is so confusing. pan- has nothing to do with personality, neither does 'sexual' actually. I think there's been a bait & switch somewhere with this term... is my thought.







I'm sticking to mah vote.

That's TWO of us. :joker:

[Ashley.]

But you're boiling down the concept of sexual attraction - a nuanced area of psychology still under constant research, rife with debate, and absolutely FULL of individual differences - to something very basic and black-and-white that I'm pretty sure doesn't apply "in stock form" to the sexual psychology of ANY individual or at least, not to any individual who has adequately explored their sexuality in any meaningful way rather than defining it on Wikipedia.

That's exactly it, TS... Wouldn't it be so much easier to accept those individual differences rather than feeling the need to separate them off into an endless list of categories? We all find different people attractive, and we all find different things attractive.

What I'm arguing is that yes, the definition of pansexuality exists but it doesn't necessarily require the label. You can be bisexual and be attracted to personality. Myself, I'm straight, I'm attracted to men but I'm more attracted to a man's personality than what they look like. I'm still a heterosexual. Or are there separate categories for heterosexuals now, too?... Obviously I'm not stating that we straight people don't need labels so let's take away yours, but the only difference I'm seeing between pansexuals and bisexuals is what about a person attracts them more and that's a common difference in everyone.

[kirklancaster]

That's exactly it, TS... Wouldn't it be so much easier to accept those individual differences rather than feeling the need to separate them off into an endless list of categories? We all find different people attractive, and we all find different things attractive.

What I'm arguing is that yes, the definition of pansexuality exists but it doesn't necessarily require the label. You can be bisexual and be attracted to personality. Myself, I'm straight, I'm attracted to men but I'm more attracted to a man's personality than what they look like. I'm still a heterosexual. Or are there separate categories for heterosexuals now, too?... Obviously I'm not stating that we straight people don't need labels so let's take away yours, but the only difference I'm seeing between pansexuals and bisexuals is what about a person attracts them more and that's a common difference in everyone.

Great post full of common sense, Ash.

I do not rate myself as some sort of intellectual 'Dummy' but I admit that I am completely confused by this subject.

I just see a need in some to keep categorising and labelling things where there is NO need to keep doing so. :shrug:

Baffled.

[Jamie89]

Sexuality's very complicated but also really simple, depending on what aspect is actually being talked about. The way I see it is that sexuality includes so many differences, and labels such as 'pansexual' address those differences (if someone so chooses to apply it to themselves). But then there's 'sexual orientation' (gay/straight/bisexual) which isn't so much about those nuances, but quite straight forward, in that it ignores the many possible reasons why someone is sexually attracted to someone else, it's just that they are attracted. It's not what leads to a sexual act taking place, it's who the sexual act is with. So in a way, 'pansexual' is more a descriptor of the individual, a statement expressing their wider views on gender identity/nonbinary genders, and also that they want people to know what those views are. It might be that one person wants to do so because they think it sounds superior to just saying they're 'bisexual', or it may be that they want people who identify with non binary genders to feel more validated, there's a whole load of reasons why someone might want to associate with a label. Orientation isn't an expression of beliefs or attitudes though and is simply determined by the resulting sexual relationships. And labels regarding orientation I think are really quite important since they have certain legal protections associated with them which we had to fight for, and is another reason why I think it's useful not to get muddled up between orientation and other preferences/identities/nuances of sexuality etc. Those laws don't see gender identity (and neither does the marginalisation of gay and lesbian people), they're specifically about the sex of the people you sleep with.

Put simply, you can tell if someone is gay/straight/bi/asexual based on who they do or don't want to have sex with. You can't tell if someone is pansexual based on that. And that's because it's a description of that persons personal attitudes within their sexual orientation, rather than an expression of orientation itself, which is what bisexuality is. But yes it's still valid for what it is.

As for whether or not labels like pansexual are important. They're important if the individual using them to describe themselves considers them important I suppose. They can have certain social benefits if you want people to know what your 'type' is, or as a way of sharing something about your views. If someone is using their label to put someone else down then they're just a twat tbh :laugh: But I don't think that's necessarily a problem with the label... some people are just twats.

[Beso]

Couldnt pan be further broken down into what type of personality they go for..like liking a blokey bloke..or a girly girl..etc etc etc.

[user104658]

I just see a need in some to keep categorising and labelling things where there is NO need to keep doing so. :shrug:

Baffled.

They're important if the individual using them to describe themselves considers them important I suppose. They can have certain social benefits if you want people to know what your 'type' is, or as a way of sharing something about your views.

I guess, in terms of the question there Kirk and this part of what Jamie has said, I'm wondering if the "labelling culture" might be quite strongly linked to the fairly new "tech dating" trend? Pretty much the number one way for people to meet these days is through dating sites and apps... where people are sort of "selling themselves", trying to get across as much information as they can about themself in as small a space as possible, without their potential match getting bored and "swiping away" to the next person. So people feel like they need to be able to say "I am THIS, THIS and THIS, are you interested??" and the easiest way to do that, is to have everyone categorised... sort of... pre-packaged I guess? In a way that lets people know roughly what to expect from bare minimum interaction. :think:

[Ashley.]

Great post full of common sense, Ash.

I do not rate myself as some sort of intellectual 'Dummy' but I admit that I am completely confused by this subject.

I just see a need in some to keep categorising and labelling things where there is NO need to keep doing so. :shrug:

Baffled.

It's not really a subject that I've looked into that much to be honest, in fact the most I've probably discussed topics like this are on TiBB. I am not a simplist, as much as my posts in this thread may give off that conclusion. I am fully aware that there are endless differences in attraction and sexuality - I saw something the other day for example, I can't remember where so I can't link it, stating that everyone has a 'percentage' of how hetero/homosexual they are. There was an entire psychological experiment on it, I believe, and not many were considered 100% or 0%. But anyway, before I start rambling - my point is that, at the time I thought so what then? Where are the lines 'drawn' to determine sexuality? Is everyone between the 1% and 99% marks, bisexual? Stay with me Kirk, this is going somewhere...

And I thought, if everyone has all these individual differences then surely the lines between sexuality are blurred or at the very least hard to apply, and if they are blurred, how can we possibly categorise everything? There's going to be crossovers - you're going to come across somebody for example who is more attracted to personality than gender, but within that has, say, a 72% likelihood of being attracted to the personality of a man/woman...

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Kirk, I agree with you. :laugh: It is confusing. Sexuality is a big enough topic as it is, without making it more complicated by... adding things.

[Maru]

@Jamie98 I was about to call your aid, as you are usually so good with these topics.

Anyway, back to pan...

If it's so subtly nuanced, then it's no wonder it's not setting off a lightbulbs for me. The pan- prefix is misleading because it's an unexpected usage given the class of words it's being used alongside. So that doesn't help...

I have not heard about the attracted to personality definition before this thread, but maybe it was poorly explained before. And even then, I still can't say I understand it completely either...

To be 100% honest here, if I were dating and I'd read on an app that the person was pansexy/etc, I'd probably swipe to reject. By first impressions, it's thinking a bit too hard and taking oneself too seriously. Kind of like how things like 'gluten intolerance' crept into people's lexicon when those persons became members of certain subcultures...

But perhaps this is the intention... to signal to others within your common subculture that you. are. game. Bring me all your pansexual peni-... but for everyone else who can't wrap their little brains around my pansexiness, stay away... too "-normative", etc

Anyway, when I hear these nuanced terms I do sometimes think they're a bat signal to others within a subculture that they fit into the deep thinking definition, more sensitive in an otherworldly sense type of person, but it doesn't really imply any actual depth if that makes any sense. So, again, it would be a red flag for me, because it may imply a preoccupation with oneself. I've met those folk before when I was dating (a long time ago https://media.giphy.com/media/elprmsUphsBgaf8u0B/giphy.gif), and if I got it even slightly wrong one of those nuances, they were very unforgiving and took it very seriously my getting it correct the next time...

This isn't me trying to pan the pan-sexual crowd (pun unintended)... just that if I were dating, this would be a huge stressor for me, deciding which side of the pan-sexual crowd that person fits in... genuine or superficial and I'd secretly worry if they were a furry (because I've seen that). Which is a failure of a label really... because shouldn't such labels enlighten or at least raise our awareness a bit on what those distinctive differences might be. Pan- doesn't clear this up because again, where is the "all"? I would think maybe a very likely chance there would be an irresolvable compatibility issue if I can't see myself simply slip my feet into their shoes after meeting them for a bit the first time, if simple labels present such obvious questions ... anyway, I wouldn't use the term in my dating profile, even if I identified that way, just because it fails the basic function of helping the other person screen whether we are actually compatible or not... (edit: unless I intentionally want to restrict my dating pool... )

I don't think labels by themselves are harmful, they're meant to be assistive. Like anything in life though, they come with preexisting connections and messages that can't be completely divorced from culture or other words in that same category (just like particular colors, smells, environments, etc)... which is why I'm trying to figure out where does this term apply in the culture in which we all currently reside in? I think resolve that and then it's easier to absorb pansexy's interpretation and to understand it's core meaning... we use words as social tools to relate to each other... it's like in graphic design... don't use words, messaging or colors in such a way that they connect others (unintentionally or not) to negative outcomes ... the goal should be crystal clear.

Googling this term makes it even more confusing!! :skull:

Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/pansexual

pan·sex·u·al (păn-sĕk′sho͞o-əl)
adj.
Relating to, having, or open to sexual activity of many kinds.

Wiki agrees with Dezzy it seems...

Wikipedia: Pansexuality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality

Pansexuality, or omnisexuality,[1] is the sexual, romantic or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity.[2][3] Pansexual people may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are not determining factors in their romantic or sexual attraction to others.[4][5]

Pansexuality may be considered a sexual orientation in its own right or a branch of bisexuality, to indicate an alternative sexual identity.[3][6][7] Because pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, and pansexuality therefore rejects the gender binary,[3][7] it is often considered a more inclusive term than bisexual.[8][9] To what extent the term bisexual is inclusive when compared with the term pansexual is debated within the LGBT community, especially the bisexual community.[9]

5 pansexual misconceptions that are just plain wrong
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/relationships/a10315700/pansexual-meaning-myths/

2. We only fancy people based on their personality

There's a word for that: demisexual (when you only ever experience attraction to others after getting to know them).

I fully believe that you can be a shallow-ass person when it comes to looks (I know I am!) and still be fiercely pansexual.


I find the whole demi-sexual thing fascinating though. I think because I've always been a bit of a prude until I trust that someone exclusively... there's guys I dated that I wouldn't even let touch my hand. The idea of doing more with them grossed me out (it was in high school...)... but my trust can come quickly depending on the person, and so I can start seeing them that way relatively quickly... I just always thought I had very solid emotional and sexual brakes :love: But anyway, I think most women have these brakes to a degree... that's why the men are sometimes annoyed with us and evolution doesn't kick us in our butts. :love:

[Redway]

What do you think about agender people Withano? Males who get vexed whenever someone assumes their gender just because they’ve got a dick.

[Northern Monkey]

So after reading most of this thread and being confused as feck i decided to take my research to that bastion of intellectualism - YouTube.

Unfortunately it seems that the scholars of all things gender and sexuality related are just as fecking confused as the rest of us as they don’t agree themselves on the definition.
Hardly a coherent definition or differentiation to be heard.

I think what i got from it if anything was that ‘Pansexual’ seems to be a term used by those people who don’t believe in the so called ‘gender binary’ of man and woman.The kind of people who believe in the 72 genders theory.
This is still confusing.

So since nobody actually knows what it is.I conclude that it’s actually a load of bollocks.

[kirklancaster]

So after reading most of this thread and being confused as feck i decided to take my research to that bastion of intellectualism - YouTube.

Unfortunately it seems that the scholars of all things gender and sexuality related are just as fecking confused as the rest of us as they don’t agree themselves on the definition.
Hardly a coherent definition or differentiation to be heard.

I think what i got from it if anything was that ‘Pansexual’ seems to be a term used by those people who don’t believe in the so called ‘gender binary’ of man and woman.The kind of people who believe in the 72 genders theory.
This is still confusing.

So since nobody actually knows what it is.I conclude that it’s actually a load of bollocks.

:laugh2:

[kirklancaster]

It's not really a subject that I've looked into that much to be honest, in fact the most I've probably discussed topics like this are on TiBB. I am not a simplist, as much as my posts in this thread may give off that conclusion. I am fully aware that there are endless differences in attraction and sexuality - I saw something the other day for example, I can't remember where so I can't link it, stating that everyone has a 'percentage' of how hetero/homosexual they are. There was an entire psychological experiment on it, I believe, and not many were considered 100% or 0%. But anyway, before I start rambling - my point is that, at the time I thought so what then? Where are the lines 'drawn' to determine sexuality? Is everyone between the 1% and 99% marks, bisexual? Stay with me Kirk, this is going somewhere...

And I thought, if everyone has all these individual differences then surely the lines between sexuality are blurred or at the very least hard to apply, and if they are blurred, how can we possibly categorise everything? There's going to be crossovers - you're going to come across somebody for example who is more attracted to personality than gender, but within that has, say, a 72% likelihood of being attracted to the personality of a man/woman...

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Kirk, I agree with you. :laugh: It is confusing. Sexuality is a big enough topic as it is, without making it more complicated by... adding things.

:joker: It's GREAT to be in agreement on something neither of us has a clue about. :laugh:

[Jessica.]

Oh and a demisexual is a person who can't experience sexual attraction without an emotional connection. True phenomenon obviously. Especially for females.

Distinct sexuality? Mhm. Is it really?

It's mine, so yes.

[Northern Monkey]

:laugh2:

I mean.This is a small sample of the incoherent waffle we’re dealing with.

FRErgqejfQI

I can’t make head nor tail of it.See if you understand it more and i’m missing something?

[Maru]

FRErgqejfQI

https://media.giphy.com/media/tqGqJKHWOINRC/giphy.gif

[kirklancaster]

I mean.This is a small sample of the incoherent waffle we’re dealing with.

FRErgqejfQI

I can’t make head nor tail of it.See if you understand it more and i’m missing something?

:laugh: Nope, I can't follow any of it. Seriously, I am totally confused by this.

Don't get me wrong though, if someone wants to label themselves as 'Pansexual' I'm all for it - it isn't harming or affecting me in any way.

[Maru]

All I can gather is that it has to do with which label a person prefers. Bi- and pan- are interchangeable... in most cases?...

[Tom4784]

She did hit up on a good point in that video, that Pansexuals don't necessarily have to deal with the 'baggage' of being bi which I think is potentially a reason why people say they are pansexual, kinda like how some gay people will say they are bi because they don't want to admit they are gay.

The only differences between the two are perceived differences, not actual differences.

[Maru]

She did hit up on a good point in that video, that Pansexuals don't necessarily have to deal with the 'baggage' of being bi which I think is potentially a reason why people say they are pansexual, kinda like how some gay people will say they are bi because they don't want to admit they are gay.

The only differences between the two are perceived differences, not actual differences.

Ironically, I'd argue bi- has the least baggage... just because pannysexual is more likely to be linked with SJW’s (the pejorative version) and furry people since it’s definition is so easily manipulated by random folk it appears :laugh:

Pansexual itself as a term is more fun and interesting I guess, because it draws more curiosity (and controversy) ... as clearly seen by the responses to this thread.

That's another thing I've noticed. “Controversy” itself is trendy now. Whereas, it used to be all about being a rebel, but you were still near the edge of the box so to speak (outside the box, but not way out there in outer space, like a weirdo...)... Nobody wanted to be misconstrued as an anti-social freak in the 90's, it was forbidden... now that seems to be “in” in a way. More likely to be called a creative and some other free thinker... which is good in a way because people now give others a second look, but at the same time some of the more mundane aspects of life are getting brand new complicated and (sometimes confusing) re-definitions on the basis of abstract situations or outliers... but even to mention or talk about those outliers a conversation can cause major offense.

[Tom4784]

Ironically, I'd argue bi- has the least baggage... just because pannysexual is more likely to be linked with SJW’s (the pejorative version) and furry people since it’s definition is so easily manipulated by random folk it appears :laugh:

Pansexual itself as a term is more fun and interesting I guess, because it draws more curiosity (and controversy) ... as clearly seen by the responses to this thread.

That's another thing I've noticed. “Controversy” itself is trendy now. Whereas, it used to be all about being a rebel, but you were still near the edge of the box so to speak (outside the box, but not way out there in outer space, like a weirdo...)... Nobody wanted to be misconstrued as an anti-social freak in the 90's, it was forbidden... now that seems to be “in” in a way. More likely to be called a creative and some other free thinker... which is good in a way because people now give others a second look, but at the same time some of the more mundane aspects of life are getting brand new complicated and (sometimes confusing) re-definitions on the basis of abstract situations or outliers... but even to mention or talk about those outliers a conversation can cause major offense.

Being bisexual comes with it's own problems, especially if you're a man since a lot of people will think male bisexuals are gay people in denial, plus you have the stereotype that bisexual people are untrustworthy or more likely to cheat among other things.

I think the LGBT community can also be very unwelcoming to bisexual people as well, attitudes like Christopher Biggins' for example can be sadly quite common.

[Oliver_W]

:laugh: Nope, I can't follow any of it. Seriously, I am totally confused by this.

Don't get me wrong though, if someone wants to label themselves as 'Pansexual' I'm all for it - it isn't harming or affecting me in any way.

People can call themselves what they like. But like non-binary gender identities, "pansexual" has no validity or relevance outside of the person's head.

[Ammi]

...I guess what my thoughts are..(..ultimately...)...is that our sexuality is something inherent in us, that’s predetermined at birth...and whether we’re heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual etc...whatever our sexuality is, we find an ‘identifier../..a descriptor..’../type thing which identifies our own sexuality...for pansexual, some who identify as pansexual..?...it’s because they don’t feel or may not feel that ‘bisexual’ would be a correct or accurate identifier for them and their sexuality...I don’t think it’s any type of wanting to feel special in any type of way...but just more figuring out the definition of their sexuality...as sexuality is so much a part of people...

...and I guess for some ..(...as Jamie has said..)...that ‘label’ is important and as Withano has said...those ‘differences’ are important because they’re important to that pansexual person or those pansexual people who feel those terms and ‘identifiers’ are important and who feel that ‘bi’ does not really describe them in terms of their sexuality...beyond that though, too many labels just create confusion..(..I think...)...so become counterproductive to understanding, I fear....