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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Hot

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?

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.

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.

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.

If it was on an airplane, you'd be PanAirSexual :laugh:

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?

'Bussy' just got a whole new meaning.

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

:laugh2:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I'd class them both under the umbrella of "attraction", split into physical/sexual attraction and personality-based attraction.

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".

That's TWO of us. :joker:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

@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 ), 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

Wiki agrees with Dezzy it seems...

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

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

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:

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

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:

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