No she was a bisexual woman in a relationship with a man.

What kind of stupid logic you have.

Well you would think Cherie, but evidently some people struggle.

Either that or purposely pretending to misunderstand.

Amen brother. Being bi really means what it means: being attracted to both sexes, and/or to people who are non-binary. It has nothing to do with how you got that gender in the first place or later on.

And for those who are keep asking the same question: no, us bi people don't have twice has much choice as people only attracted to one gender lmao
If anything I did find it hard to position myself when I was younger.

And in the end I'm happy for her whatever or whoever she is. Just be you, go out there and have fun with whoever you find pleasing. And don't put too many labels on yourself.
Bi, gay, straights, trans, whoever, we're all going to hell anyway so :shrug:

I'm getting bored of all the things I can't have a view on...
Who's to say that any other sexualities can empathise?
Everyone's experience is unique to them from the particular people they are atracted to, their family, culture, age, religion, creed no two persons can fully identify.
It's over simplified to say oh you are bi you get me...

Obviously I'm not saying LT is anything but cringe worthy, however I don't think you should write all heterosexuals off fir being the norm, that language perpetuates division at a time when barriers should be coming down.

Turns out that she only came out because a ‘journalist’ from the Mail was going to do it for her and she wanted it to be on her own terms, our media is a disgrace

I'm not saying you can't have a view on anything, that's not my style but you'll never truly understand the journey and the pain that non-straight people go through. You can empathise but how can someone understand what it's like growing up thinking that their parents will cast them out if anyone finds out something about themselves that heterosexuals don't even have to think about. You have to think about everything, consider everything you do and worry about whether or not you can 'pass' for straight.

Imagine making friends while thinking in the back of your mind 'would these people reject me or worse, cause me harm if they knew the truth?' and apply that to everyone, every social interaction is a trial and you fear everything and everyone. You don't ever let people close, you can't afford, you've got to be on guard at every waking second because you feel like if you breathe and take a moment, it'll all fall apart. That's just a little bit of what it's like growing up not straight.

LT disrespected the journey this woman has gone through to be at peace with herself and he did that because, as a hetero, he can never understand the pain of that journey. It is not something he would ever think about normally because his heterosexuality will likely ever cause him as much anguish as the sexuality of a non-straight person would cause them.

I'm a man, I'm never going to experience childbirth like you have but what you're essentially trying to argue for is essentially comparable to me mansplaining childbirth to you or anyone else that has physically gone through it. I can understand the process, I can understand the procedures involved, I will never understand what an expectant mother goes through, I can empathise from a distance, but I will never truly understand it from their perspective. It's the best comparison I can make to help you understand where I'm coming from.

You can understand heterosexuality, you can't understand the journey for non-straight kids and how it runs deeper than love stories in a book or a film.

Well I respect that and it makes perfect sense in that context, . With any luck our culture will continue to evolve and less and less young people will feel that stigma.
Of course heterosexuals won't experience that anguish or comprehend how it feels.
An understanding of that struggle and an awareness of how it may impact is enough. We don't have to dismiss all those who haven't experienced this life as some charmed sub group.

Pansexual is sexual attraction to the mind, not the body - so usually includes all genders... but not because of their gender

How is that different to bi sexual though? That's basically saying they're attracted to a person's personality, alot of people straight, gay or bi are like that too?

Bi people can be sexually attracted to dick and clit, pans can’t

So they dont have sex then?

No, that’s closer to asexuality. Pansexuals would have sexual feelings for people - they just don’t care about the genitals.

But that's the same as bisexuals, unless you're saying that bisexuals dont care about personalities of the people that the genitals are attached to, which I doubt is true for the vast majority of bisexuals. Most people I know anyway aren't going to sleep with or get into a relationship with a person whose personality they dont like just because they have certain genitals

It’s not the same, bi people like genitals, pan people don’t care about them - the personality bit can be the same yeh...

People can identify how they want but I've always seen pansexuality as a label that simply doesn't carry the stigma of bisexuality.

I'm bisexual but my first thought when I'm attracted so someone isn't 'phwoar! Look at that vag/dick!' Pansexuality and bisexuality to me, are one and the same. When people try to justify the differences, it always comes across as reaching. It's just another word for bisexuality for me.

I use to think "Pansexual" was being attracted to someone for their personality etc so still the bi theory in a way.

But then i found out people who identify as pans just means they date trans,women & men and whatever else people identify as.

I think Shane Jenek just confuses things, one minute he classes himself as gay then the next he's pans . I honestly think he's just gay but just grabs onto the label of pansexual like it's a trophy for his cabnet.

I also think Sam Smith is just gay but is now pushing this non binary thing to again grab onto another trend :bored: .

Well yeah that's what I mean, who is really attracted to genitals by themselves, neither are exactly "beautiful" [emoji23]

tbh that sounds like bollocks

if you will excuse the pun

They’re similar in a sense. But it’s their differences that gives them a new word. If you’re purposely ignoring the differences and dismissing them as ‘reaching’, then they’re exactly the same I suppose. But that’s on you.

Because everybody in the world must be attracted to genitalia or the world would explode?

it's yet another example of virtue signalling

That's a pointless distinction, some straights and gays might be willing to overlook genitals which contradict their normal sexuality if they find a trap attractive, that wouldn't mean they're longer straight or gay.

Pointless to you? But I’d imagine most pansexuals find it important to have a word that defines them... as ‘might be willing to overlook’ is still very different to ‘never ever gonna care either way’.

It is. And at a time when people are finally being accepted as who they are, why are we forcing people into pigeon holes? I mean, no one even really knows what pansexual means there are several descriptions on this thread all slightly different. I have to say the gay people I know in real life don't suffer from their sexuality anything like the people on this forum. Being gay does not define them it's just one part of who they are, and if someone has a problem with them, the consensus is that they can do one.

We've come so far... not many decades ago you could go to prison being gay now, only stupid people have a problem with others' sexuality. If only racism was improving as fast...

Who is actually attracted to genitals by themselves though? Not a lot of people I would say [emoji23]

this is why i like a touch of red lipstick on my dick pics

just adds that je ne sais quoi

:smug:

No not many. But jumping over the point isn’t helpful. There’s a difference between liking one type, both types, or neither. They’re sexualities and they all have different adjectives.

We're going to need more labels.

:nono:
Must be really difficult nowadays.
Labels are my pet peeve at the minute.

you must be one of them "peevers" I have heard about on LBC


:smug:

This is the kind of attitude that makes me roll my eyes tbh.

Straight people are attracted to the opposite sex or trans people of the opposite sex, gay people are attracted to same sex cis/trans people. Bisexual people are attracted to both. Asexual people have no sexual desire.

Pansexual people are attracted to both. Every justification I've ever heard of it for being different to bisexuality is flawed. 'I fall in love with people, not genders!' Simply suggests that every other sexuality are horndogs that are attracted to people for shallow reasons. Everyone falls in love because of personality, everyone is attracted to people with good personalities. Falling for someone for physical attributes is lust and nothing more. 'I'm pansexual because I'm attracted to trans people', this just suggests that everyone apart from pan people are transphobic, any sexuality can fall for a trans person who identifies as the gender they are attracted to.

Noticing the trend here? Everything that purportedly makes pansexuality 'unique' is actually embodied by all the sexualities and in order to make pansexuality seem like it's own thing, you pretty much have to disparage every other sexuality by making them lesser than they are.

People can identify as they want, I'm not stopping them but I will always consider bisexuality and pansexuality the same thing.

Busted:blush:

I always thought that pansexual meant you were attracted to anyone regardless of gender but not in a sexual way too. All other sexualities involve actually having sex, except asexual who aren't attracted to anyone?

But again, that can apply to everyone. There's plenty of people in the world who are straight but might find themselves attracted to someone other than their preferred gender. Sometimes you'll get a gay person who'll find themselves attracted to someonne they typically wouldn't be.

Again, for me it's just stretching out things to justify what is typically just another label for bisexuality.

the only reason anything ever needs to be labelled is so it can be targeted by advertising and marketing, this is no different.