Seconded! At this Rate PC is going to go down as the biggest joke in history and all those that bought into it!

The term keeps changing

I originally thought pansexual meant just liking the person for their personality and more of a companionship thing :conf:

But now its become a sexual thing like the rest of the jargon nonsensical alphabet labels.

And now when people say pansexual they mean they date and sleep with men,women & trans .

Can't the LGBT just stick with LGBT rather than add extra ridiculous letters that look like a mental drunken recite of the aphabet :bored: .

I think LGBT+ was totally fine personally... were some people just like "HEY I am offended about just being part of the +!"?

There was a BBC3 program about the whole long alphabet, and people apart of the LGBT community were puzzled & confused themselves at what these extra letters mean:facepalm: .

It's something like LGBTQQAAII what the hell is this ??? :crazy:
Where did all those ridiculous letters come from ??, they might as well add Hetro / straight to the list jargon haha seen as they've added everything else .

One of the letters stands for allies. So yes, straight people are now included in the LGBT alphabet soup.

Even asexual I don't understand tbh, as noone is ever going to be discriminated against for not feeling sexual attraction. Any more than 'allies' are going to suffer discrimination for being..allies

Yeah now I remember that's it Allies omg :bored:
And yeah Asexual isn't interested in anything, even intersex is on the alphabet list when people are born with 2 body private parts :facepalm:

There are varying degrees of intersex, I can see how people could be discriminated against for that. However, LGB was about sexuality, not every single person who can face discrimination. Adding more and more letters, to me, waters down the cause. But stonewall added T because they had done pretty much all campaigning they can do for LGB people after achieving equal marriage, then they widened 'T' to include crossdressers and such, rather than just transsexual people. Since adding T, they have shat all over LGB (especially L) people too. Tis a sorry state of affairs.

I think people would use ‘LGBT’ more regularly when they’re discussing discriminatory issues, anduse LGBTQQIAAP when they’re discussing the community and inclusivity.

LGBT is still a phrase that gets used. The rest of the letters are usually used for different reasons.

The full LGBT does annoy to no end because most of it is so pointless. A lot of the letters are redundant and having 'Ally' be apart of it is just pandering to straight people to include them in something that ultimately isn't about them.

I support civil rights movements and groups regarding race but, as a white person, for example I can't be apart of Black Live Matter as much as a black person can because while I can do what I can to support the cause, I'm not a victim of that particular type of prejudice. I can call for change, I can support movements but to demand recognition for it wouldn't be right.

Allies are valuable but I don't really agree with putting an A in the LGBT name just for them.

So people saying Bisexuals go for personality over looks

When you go out and have a one night stand do you spend weeks getting to know thoer personality first?

i think extending lgbt dilutes the cause. If it is extended to include all sorts, then the more inclusive it becomes, the less people will believe they have valid issues. How could a group that all encompassing possibly need support

In my opinion LGBT was making good ground and with all the additions its become a laughing stock

Are you saying pansexual people never ever have one night stands?

I can do one night stands, or I used to. However, when actually looking for a relationship, of course I value personality more. I can be physically attracted to someone enough to shag them, but beyond one night, I want more than looking pretty tbh. And a bad personality can turn me off someone quickly. Same as a few times, someone I have found not attractive at all when meeting them, I have grown to fancy like mad after getting to know them. I think this is surely true of most people?!

So basically, pansexuals never ever have a sexual relationship until they know all aspects of a persons personality?

No because you are romantic once you are in the relationship.

This is why I think pansexuals are just bisexuals who don't want the label. You are basically slutshaming bi people to make pansexuality sound more legitimate.

I disagree, hetero and homosexuals have one night stands too, they do it because they can be sexually attracted to men or women or both in a physical way. Pansexuals do not experience physical sexual attraction, so would be unlikely to have a one night stand.

(based on sexual attraction anyway, im sure it still happens out of loneliness, intimacy, boredom, drunkeness etc).

Most people are only romantic when they're in relationships though :suspect:

I was going to say most times One Night Stands happen because you're drunk lbh

Seriously, I think that ^THIS so accurately and succinctly sums up this issue. No more to be said, really.

In my opinion.

Panfreaking-tastic

:laugh: I wonder if this issue is being debated in monasteries among Friars? :hee:

I would never sleep with someone I didn't know.

And as yes pansexual do have sex but only with people they get to know and learn about not some random in the street

I'm not really into one night stands, but I feel sexual attraction toward both genders.

But can we ever truly know anyone, Adam :worry:

And thats the same for most people of any orientation.

But thats because you are attracted TO genders! :fist:

No because I would shag the 1st person to buy me a drink in the club

But withano just said

Unlikely.

Well..most heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual people would be 'unlikely' to have a one night stand, and even more unlikely if you took alcohol, loneliness, intimacy, boredom and such out of the equation.

This thread is making my head hurt. I still see no difference between bisexual and pansexual except for people trying to make out that bisexual people are just wanton sluts*. Or transphobic (not on here, in general..this is the main thing that is thrown at those who dare to define themselves as bi instead of pan)

*I think theres nothing wrong with multiple sexual partners, but this is the best way of saying this tbh

The main difference is physical, raw sexual attraction to the male or female entity

And sexual attraction to the personality that may be within any entity

They can both be true for bi people, only one is true for pan people.

OK. I can understand that, I think. I CAN be attracted to someone on looks alone..as I suspect pretty much anyone who has ever had a crush on a celebrity or something feels. However, would this not mean, that the fact that my physical attraction changes as I learn personalities, make me pan sometimes, and bi the rest of the time? Like, literally people stop even looking physically attractive to me once I learn their personalities if they are bad and it sometimes gets to the stage where I cannot understand how I ever thought they were attractive to begin with? Ontop of this, no matter how physically attractive a person was, I would never even entertain the idea of a sober one night stand when we had not ever spoke.

And on the flipside, those I feel no attraction to at all who I fancy more and more, and it gets to the stage where I cannot imagine how I didn't fancy them at all to begin with? Or, I can start fancying them as I get to know them, and then it turns out that they do have aspects of their personality that i do not like...and they start losing it all..

Maybe it turns out I actually AM pan, rather than bi. Like I discovered that I was actually apparently A-gender, 'gender non-conforming' AND 'non-binary' and possibly more when I didn't know this too :S

Else all these labels would fit the huge majority of people most of the time too. Thats an option. Where homo, hetero, bi or asexual would not fit near all people.

Withano I'm just going to be blunt at this point and say that I don't think you have a full understanding of "the norm" when it comes to sexuality. This is massively oversimplified, unless a huge proportion (the majority, I would hazard a guess) of the human race are in fact pansexual.

I don’t think its my place to define you, go with whatever works for you.. There probably is a comfortable place in the middle of bi and pan, I don’t know if there is a word for this yet!

Bi and pan have several similarities and I guess thats what made this thread interesting, but there are some differences too, which seemed to have been skirted over in the thread which I find a bit of a shame.

Personally I think it exists. Everything exists. Some guy out there right now is sexually attracted to their car and nothing else, why is it beyond the realms of possibility that some other guy is sexually attracted to personality and nothing else?

Completely agree with the para that I left, and thats why I dont care too much about the ‘alphabet soup’ that others have a problem with... millions of sexualities probably exist, we’ve probably only just got to the first stage of exploring them.

I’m aware of that ts. We’re on page 12, and still discussing what it means, theres no point over complicating it, when we havent really jumped the first hurdle yet. Bisexuality can be discribed in a novel. I dont think ive described it in over 2 sentences yet. Im really not claiming everything im saying is the full story.

Edit actually i think you misunderstood my post. The bit you left was me describing an attribute of bi people, not pan people, and not both groups.

Yes, more labels is just whats needed :D I guess I am bipansexual. As is near every other 'mere' bisexual person, in reality.
I am not trying to skirt over any differences, I am literally not understanding the differences people are claiming that there is! It is really coming down to...bi people would **** anything that was pretty, where pan people would not and actually care about the personality too. Which is clearly bonkers. And plays into some offensive stereotypes too actually.
But..is it a sexuality? The guy who is attracted to his car has not made up carsexuality. That I am aware of anyway

I don;t think anyone is disputing that some people find personality more important than anything else, or even the only thing that attracts them. But if it genuinely is personality and you would sleep with either sex, then you are bi. Not a totally different sexuality..surely...

It makes as much sense as claiming that the guy who only ever shags/fancies brunette women is a different sexuality to other heterosexual men. To me

Well, Id argue that anybody who says something like this is biphobic(?) (save me from the anti-pc brigade, theyre not gonna like my use of that word at all). That isnt what it means to be bi, and anybody that claims it is, is a daft tit.

Romantic means being okay with hugs, kisses etc.. Like general dating stuff, before the official boyfriend/girlfriend labels. Not what you're thinking of.

LMAO.

But..thats how your posts are coming across to me? All of this, bi people its about raw sexual attraction, pan people its about the mind, and such. Like, I was paraphrasing your very own posts (and Adams actually)

And sorry for the huge edit just before :laugh: I make a habit of that, when I really shouldn't

I dont think ive said that at all. Bi people can be sexually attracted to people, pan people can not

Bi people can be sexually attracted to personality, pan people can too

There is a very key similarity, and a very key difference between the two sexualities.

I'm becoming very -phobic to the constant tossing of phobias on message boards... because this commentary doesn't occur to most folk in real life unless they're a committed member of those subculture(s)... Anyway, I remember when homophobia used to basically mean you were afraid of being gay or being considered gay and the LGBT used to not be so authoritative... now it's just a PC way of calling everyone a jerk for not sharing the same belief system. A complete contrast to the sense of compassionate acceptance and broader sense of respect we grew up on within that movement. The new(er) rhetoric is a complete bait & switch...

But a personality is not its own entity. So being attracted to a personality is still being attracted to a person? Again, my head hurts here :laugh:

Am not trying to be funny or anything incase thats coming across that way. Just, I am not understanding this AT ALL and am actually finding many of the posts trying to explain the difference to be a bit offensive (though its noones right not to be offended..just pointing out that it IS actually coming across as quite biphobic to me..but meh) and very very rooted in stereotypes. Like, do you think gay people would be happy if someone came out with a new word that meant 'gay but cares about personality' and decided that homosexuality was actually about raw sexual attraction..and as a side effect, basically promiscuity. Those who stuck to 'gay' did not care about personality, some may care but its mainly about the 'sexual attraction' than forming actual bonds, and such? Of course they would not. But its fine to say this about bi people, because...? IDK. Apparently theres a reason.