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.