Pansexuality - a fad or a tangible sexuality?

[Redway]

As it says in the title.

[Redway]

Any reason in particular why you went with the first option Shaun? Not that I disagree.

[Shaun]

I've always felt pansexuality is a superfluous continuation of bisexuality; it rests on the idea of falling for someone or being attracted to someone regardless of their gender - and puts emphasis on non-binary, trans or intersex individuals... but I've always felt that to differentiate this from bisexuality is sort of a middle-finger to everyone who's ever identified as "bisexual" in the past as if they're bigoted and unwilling to be attracted to such people.

I think the key word is "sex" in sexual, and whilst there are absolutely a ton of valid gender identities, there are only two sexes and bisexual therefore covers all aspects. I have no problem with people clarifying what they mean by when they say they're bisexual, and I guess I don't really care if someone says they're "pan", but I just take umbridge with the implication that anyone who's bi is transphobic or adheres to concrete gender norms. I also think "pansexuality" has, ironically, itself become an umbrella term for a bunch of different-minded people; to some, being pan goes hand in hand with polyamory, whilst others would be monogamous, and it's differences like that that make the term just a bit meaningless in my eyes.

[Elliot]

They’re two different things and there’s a lot of ppl who do make the distinction even tho it’s not that important but there’s a lot of ppl who call themselves bisexual where pansexuality more accurately applies to them.

[Niamh.]

I suppose it depends on what your understanding of the term sexual orientation is, my understanding of it is which sex you're attracted to, therefore there can only by 4 different sexual orientations - Same sex, Opposite sex, both sexes or neither sex. Anything other than that would fall under personal attractions/who you're attracted to/how you date people but that would still fall under one of those 4 categories....if that makes sense?

[Liam-]

It’s just bisexuality for people who want to sound different

[LeatherTrumpet]

I think its just a way for people to feel important

[Jessica.]

What a ridiculous thread. Of course they're different.

[Kate!]

I suppose it depends on what your understanding of the term sexual orientation is, my understanding of it is which sex you're attracted to, therefore there can only by 4 different sexual orientations - Same sex, Opposite sex, both sexes or neither sex. Anything other than that would fall under personal attractions/who you're attracted to/how you date people but that would still fall under one of those 4 categories....if that makes sense?

Yes that makes sense. You've explained it well Niamh. Thats how I see it.

[Mitchell]

If they feel like that is their sexuality, then that’s none of my business

[Redway]

What a ridiculous thread. Of course they're different.

It’s not ridiculous if so many people question it. We’re not talking hard science here, just labels.

[Tom4784]

People's choices are their own, if someone identifies as pansexual than power to them BUT, I do think that pansexuality is bisexuality by another name without the negative stigma of bisexuality.

A lot of the indentifiers of pansexuality also applies to other sexualities. A straight person can have sex with a trans person and still be straight, same with gay or bisexual people sleeping with a trans person because I recognise trans people as simply being the gender they have transitioned to. Suggesting that other sexualities are more binary and more focused on physical attraction is also demeaning to other people, since one thing I always hear is that pansexual people fall in love with people and not genders which just suggests that everyone else has less meaningful relationships by default.

Pansexuality is essentially just bisexuality without any preferences.

[Captain.Remy]

This is their sexuality and no one has to judge it or define it but themselves. Love is love, and that's where it's at.
Be whoever you feel like being, as long as it's done with consent and not harming children/animals.

[Captain.Remy]

I've always felt pansexuality is a superfluous continuation of bisexuality; it rests on the idea of falling for someone or being attracted to someone regardless of their gender - and puts emphasis on non-binary, trans or intersex individuals... but I've always felt that to differentiate this from bisexuality is sort of a middle-finger to everyone who's ever identified as "bisexual" in the past as if they're bigoted and unwilling to be attracted to such people.

I think the key word is "sex" in sexual, and whilst there are absolutely a ton of valid gender identities, there are only two sexes and bisexual therefore covers all aspects. I have no problem with people clarifying what they mean by when they say they're bisexual, and I guess I don't really care if someone says they're "pan", but I just take umbridge with the implication that anyone who's bi is transphobic or adheres to concrete gender norms. I also think "pansexuality" has, ironically, itself become an umbrella term for a bunch of different-minded people; to some, being pan goes hand in hand with polyamory, whilst others would be monogamous, and it's differences like that that make the term just a bit meaningless in my eyes.

Not all, I know I'm not at least. Proud bi and really had sex with pretty much all sexualities out there :laugh: But yeah, this is a known problem in the LGBT+ community in regards to "other" forms of sexualities. We really sometimes are our worst ennemy. I think it's down to education and learning what is what and who is who. It really isn't complicated to understand and not judge others for who/what they are attracted to.

[Jack_]

To be fair, all sexualities (or rather, "sexual orientations") are no more or less tangible than any other. And there's a reason for that! The idea of having a "sexual orientation" is itself a discursive production, not an inherent truth (see: The History of Sexuality). A few hundred years ago sex was something one did, now it defines who you are.

"Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species"

That's not to say they aren't real, or are illegitimate, or that people choose who or what they're attracted to (this is really important), but it's worth remembering that literally all sexual orientations, are, in essence (and for want of a better phrase), "made up". So does it really matter?

Also, that's not to mention the fact that there are so many different facets to one's own sexuality, and yet we just use gender for definitional purposes. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet is well worth a read on this subject. Will change ya life, trust!

"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"."

"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."

TLDR: live and let live, none of it really matters

[Daniel.]

It's bisexuality.

[Redway]

To be fair, all sexualities (or rather, "sexual orientations") are no more or less tangible than any other. And there's a reason for that! The idea of having a "sexual orientation" is itself a discursive production, not an inherent truth (see: The History of Sexuality). A few hundred years ago sex was something one did, now it defines who you are.



That's not to say they aren't real, or are illegitimate, or that people choose who or what they're attracted to (this is really important), but it's worth remembering that literally all sexual orientations, are, in essence (and for want of a better phrase), "made up". So does it really matter?

Also, that's not to mention the fact that there are so many different facets to one's own sexuality, and yet we just use gender for definitional purposes. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet is well worth a read on this subject. Will change ya life, trust!





TLDR: live and let live, none of it really matters

So you think everyone’s at least a little bit bisexual?

[Oliver_W]

Nah it's just bisexuality with a silly label.

Sexuality is based on sex, and there are two sexes.

Even if someone has an intersex condition, they still appear to be male or female, and will attract people based on that.

[Redway]

I figured I might as well bump this since there’s a discussion about this overfilling in the other thread.

[Cal.]

I always took pansexual to mean you can be attracted to everybody and don’t see gender or anything like that. Bisexual means that you’re attracted to women and you’re attracted to men. There’s a difference to me but idk if I can explain it properly.

[Denver]

I always took pansexual to mean you can be attracted to everybody and don’t see gender or anything like that. Bisexual means that you’re attracted to women and you’re attracted to men. There’s a difference to me but idk if I can explain it properly.

This is what it is and you would see a trans person as a trans woman/man and wouldn't call them man or woman but your the tern trans with pansexuality any gender is what you are attracted to and you wouldn't need to say your seeing a trans woman you would just call them a woman

[Denver]

Also the same people to attack pansexuals for who they are and call them attention seekers or whatever are usually the first to say we should accept everyone for whi they are

[Moniqua]

you're all such disappointments

[Oliver_W]

I always took pansexual to mean you can be attracted to everybody and don’t see gender or anything like that. Bisexual means that you’re attracted to women and you’re attracted to men. There’s a difference to me but idk if I can explain it properly.

That's still being attracted to both sexes though :shrug:

[Redway]

That's still being attracted to both sexes though :shrug:

I think the implication is that a pansexual person wouldn't be averse to "non-binary"/transgendered relations whereas a bisexual's attracted to the two orthodox sexes. Whatever your thoughts about self-identifying non-binary people you can't deny that transgender and intersexual shades do exist. One of them by nature.

[Oliver_W]

This is what it is and you would see a trans person as a trans woman/man and wouldn't call them man or woman but your the tern trans with pansexuality any gender is what you are attracted to and you wouldn't need to say your seeing a trans woman you would just call them a woman

Why does that need its own label though? Sexual attraction has little to do with gender identity, any more than it does religion. Both things are in a person's head, and it's a person's body which triggers a sexual response.

Despite identifying as transwomen, it'd be pretty gay for a man to be attracted to Jessica Yaniv, as you can tell Yaniv is male. Just like it wouldn't be gay at all for a man to be attracted to Elliot Page, as you can tell he's female.

[Denver]

Why does being straight or gay need a label? People are free to identify as how every they feel they are and its nobodies business but their own

[Oliver_W]

Why does being straight or gay need a label? People are free to identify as how every they feel they are and its nobodies business but their own

Because homosexual and heterosexual (and bisexual) are descriptors for things which ha e a basis in biological reality. I agree that people can identify as they like, I can call myself King of Oliverland :dance:

[Denver]

Its just stuck up people feeling they have the right to bully and belittle people based on there sexuality

[Ammi]

...just going with the thread title question and in my own humble opinion...I would say that it would definitely be felt as being tangible to someone who didn’t feel that bisexual completely described who they were...but it would also surely be part of and within the descriptive of bisexual as well so (not fad exactly)...but maybe felt less tangible to have as a separate to bisexual...I mean, sexuality in terms of ‘labels’ or descriptives is surely finding something that we all feel more exactly or perfectly describes us as individuals and it really is a personal thing and I don’t really ever understand why some don’t accept or like a particular sexuality someone feels they are...red is red, why can’t we just have red...why do we have to have cerise, or scarlet or burgundy..they’re all red, why can’t they just BE red....because it’s not felt that red is an accurate enough description when there are differences in reds...?...why can’t a lettuce just be a lettuce, I mean it’s a lettuce so why does it have to be a Little Gem or a Rocket or whatever...why, why, why, why, why...with sexuality so little is accepted but rather it’s questioned when really there is tangibility if that person feels a sexuality describes who they are...


HG7I4oniOyA

[Withano]

Love that we live in a society where people are literally sexually attracted to cars or animals or inanimate objects

But pansexuality is incomprehensible to some - lol get over it

[Livia]

Who cares? We have enough labels.

[Oliver_W]

Love that we live in a society where people are literally sexually attracted to cars or animals or inanimate objects

To be fair, such people are also crazy.

[Withano]

To be fair, such people are also crazy.

But you still acknowledge that sexual attraction to those things are plausible...

Just odd that you can’t fathom pansexuality after comprehending far more unusual things

[Tom4784]

It all comes under the bisexual umbrella, really.

[Oliver_W]

But you still acknowledge that sexual attraction to those things are plausible...

Just odd that you can’t fathom pansexuality after comprehending far more unusual things

I can fathom it, and it's just another way to say "bisexual"

[Withano]

I can fathom it, and it's just another way to say "bisexual"

Maybe... for someone that sucks at accurate adjectives. Otherwise no.

[Oliver_W]

Maybe... for someone that sucks at accurate adjectives. Otherwise no.

It is accurate, because it's an attraction to members of either sex. Adding caveats regarding gender identity is no different to giving a label to someone who's attracted to Christians of both sexes.

[Jack_]

So you think everyone’s at least a little bit bisexual?

Not necessarily, but not necessarily not either. It’s largely here nor there

My point is more that there are a multitude of different sexual interests that separate humans. What you and I are interested in sexually will probably be different, as will what Cal and Withano and Kim Woodburn and Bernie Sanders, and literally most humans on the planet...with the obvious exception of asexuals.

But we don’t base our identities around a preference for certain sexual acts, certain locations, even ethnicities or body shapes or age, despite the fact that such differences occur. So why do we do the same for gender? It only appears to be “natural” and “obvious” because that’s how we’ve shaped our social world, but as I alluded to, and there’s further reading to be done on this in the books I mentioned, the idea of having a “sexual orientation” is a largely “modern” (at least post-Victorians) construction. That’s not to say being attracted to one gender over another (or more) isn’t “natural” - it’s important not to confuse that - but more that having an “orientation”, it becoming an identity if you like, is not at all natural. It isn’t tangible, it hasn’t always been that way, and it’s something that modern, often western, human societies have created. People can debate the merits of it (and there are definitely positives, especially where LGB rights have been concerned), but that’s my point. And thus, if these categories of gender-orientation have been “invented”, it really doesn’t matter that much if other ones are invented too. Because they’re all invented. So who cares?

[Withano]

It is accurate, because it's an attraction to members of either sex. Adding caveats regarding gender identity is no different to giving a label to someone who's attracted to Christians of both sexes.

It’s significantly less accurate.

[Oliver_W]

It’s significantly less accurate.

becaaauuuse... ?

Religion is in someone's head, gender identity is in someone's head. Neither should affect how attractive someone appears to be.

[Smithy]

I literally don’t care, call yourself what you want it doesn’t effect me in the slightest if someone feels more comfortable using one term more than another then fair enough

[AnnieK]

I literally don’t care, call yourself what you want it doesn’t effect me in the slightest if someone feels more comfortable using one term more than another then fair enough

This is my thoughts on it too.

[Withano]

becaaauuuse... ?

Refuse to believe that’s a real question

You just asked why a word that nearly describes something is less accurate than a word that precisely describes something

[parmnion]

It all comes under the bisexual umbrella, really.

How big is the umbrella?

[Mitchell]

I literally don’t care, call yourself what you want it doesn’t effect me in the slightest if someone feels more comfortable using one term more than another then fair enough

:clap1:

[Oliver_W]

Refuse to believe that’s a real question

You just asked why a word that nearly describes something is less accurate than a word that precisely describes something

They both perfectly describe an attraction toward both sexes, therefore they are the same.

[AnnieK]

I still don't get why people care? If someone wants to say they are bisexual, pansexual or demisexual....why does anyone else care? Why can't they have that label? Why should they conform to something they don't believe they are?

[Withano]

They both perfectly describe an attraction toward both sexes, therefore they are the same.

If you think the sexualities are the same then you don’t know enough about the topic to comment on it at all

Wish you said that earlier so I didn’t need to waste my time lol.

[caprimint]

Not sure. It really depends how specific you want to be.

[Oliver_W]

I still don't get why people care? If someone wants to say they are bisexual, pansexual or demisexual....why does anyone else care? Why can't they have that label? Why should they conform to something they don't believe they are?

Well it doesn't matter, I don't care per say, people can call themselves what they like :) but pansexual has as much validity as someone saying they're gingersexual ... Neither are actual sexualities, but people can still call themselves it.

[smudgie]

Not a clue, but it doesn’t really matter does it?

[AnnieK]

Well it doesn't matter, I don't care per say, people can call themselves what they like :) but pansexual has as much validity as someone saying they're gingersexual ... Neither are actual sexualities, but people can still call themselves it.

To someone who identifies as pansexual it has validity. Who gets to decide what what is valid and what isn't?

[Oliver_W]

To someone who identifies as pansexual it has validity. Who gets to decide what what is valid and what isn't?

And someone who identifies as gingersexual would see that as valid.

No-one needs to "decide" anything, the descriptors for the three types of sexuality are perfectly fine. One is either attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes. If people want to add random qualifiers like "I'm only sexually attracted to people I like the personality of" or "I don't care if a man identifies as a woman" that's up to them, but it doesn't change their sexuality. Any more than someone who likes gingers of both genders would need their own label.

[Redway]

Shall we try again in 2023?

[GoldHeart]

I believe it's basically bisexual... but the difference is they also date trans people. I heard pansexual use to mean they liked someone for their personality first, but that could go for most people regardless of sexuality . So it just seems like a pointless extra label... as it just seems like another way of saying bisexual .

[Swan]

It's a social media attention seeking fad. Just like most others.

People can say what they like and identify as they wish, fine. But in reality, you either like men, you like women, you like both, or you don't like either.

[Redway]

I believe it's basically bisexual... but the difference is they also date trans people. I heard pansexual use to mean they liked someone for their personality first, but that could go for most people regardless of sexuality . So it just seems like a pointless extra label... as it just seems like another way of saying bisexual .

Pretty much. Apparently they go into trans.-relationships with a more open mind than someone who’s just bisexual (so they just take potential partners/fcuk buddies as they are otherwise and not because they’re attracted to a vagina or dick per-se in the way a bisexual person is). They’re looking to get funky with whoever they get funky with but sexually there’s nothing in particular they’re looking for.

Erm.

[Oliver_W]

Shall we try again in 2023?

In 2023: sexuality is still based on perceived sex, and there are two sexes that can be perceived. Bisexual is still the actual name for pansexual.

[Liam-]

The last thing this forum needs is more ‘debate’ about sexuality

[Alf]

It's not called pansexual in China. It's called Woksexual.

[Glenn.]

The last thing this forum needs is more ‘debate’ about sexuality

This.

This is the last place I would ever open a debate about something the vast majority of active users know squat about

[Alf]

This.

This is the last place I would ever open a debate about something the vast majority of active users know squat aboutAre you in that vast majority or are you an expert?

[Glenn.]

Well I don’t have pink blemished skin and im not triggered by LGBTQ so not part of the majority

[Redway]

https://youtu.be/ITjTcWGQmC4

This video’s a really interesting one, still. I’m sure some people will come out with nonsense about how the main presenter’s supposedly a big reverse-racist for having an all-black show/panel but I’d implore you to forget that for a moment and listen to what these people are actually saying.

[Oliver_W]

reverse-racist

Redudant, it's just racism.

(Maybe not in her case, don't know enough about her to say if she's racist or not)

[Redway]

Redudant, it's just racism.

(Maybe not in her case, don't know enough about her to say if she's racist or not)

She’s definitely not but as far as her video’s concerned that one is literally neither here nor there. But I know people are fond of bringing up that silly, nonsense argument (where it’s not actually warranted) whenever black-specific needs are catered for and pan-racial people get jealous.