Tea!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

These guys?

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)

bc he's pansexual :hugesmile:

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:

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

:laugh2:

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.

I didn't think you were homophobic :hugesmile:

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:

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

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"...

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.

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.