[Maru]

@Vicky I was sold on my husband's personality before I was ever sold on his looks, not that his looks were bad. We just had a very strong mental connection very early on. He looks better the older he gets too, so a big plus. I think personality-based attraction is a precursor for me... especially when it comes to opening up... not that I have any sort of conditions that are trust-based, but that I am a private person person-to-person and I don't feel like just anyone can walk through that gate and gain admission... so it means something to me to give them that side of myself ...

Anyway, I think women's emotions tend to heavily play out who they are attracted to... so I think it's kind of ironic there is this pansexuality thing that is supposed to be based entirely on personality. We are different in how we are attracted to someone, there has to be more emotional processes there flowing... sometimes that is quick, sometimes not... men on the other hand, can be turned on simply by how someone walks or carries themselves, their specific physical assets, etc... not saying that doesn't happen with women either, but there has to be an emotional component I think for that to even be the case. I.e. they associate that movement with some other romantic drama in their head, etc... us women have a lot of fun fun pictures in our head, whereas men just love "eye candy"...

While I think vaginas are prettier (aesthetically more pleasing) than peni... most of the time... I also think that peni are more attractive and more interesting, because 1) they has a very fun shape, 2) masculinity and 3) the more "aggressive" aspects of their genitalia versus our own other more abstract reasons... women do tend to look better.. but again, men are more interesting and keep my attention. It's that thrill of the contrasts between both sexes as you say...

I'm not bisexual Vicky, but I think women would be a lot better at sex with other women more times than not. Just because they already know what we like. I have known from talking to other women about what we like, watching porn, etc ... It's funny how we're both like "No, that doesn't work at all... silly men"... Because we know there is emotional complexity there too and we are equipped, biologically I believe, to deal with those complexities...

I think arousal works differently for men, isn't a flip a switch as it feels like it is with men sometimes... I think that can be a curse for women at times... especially when the chemistry is not as strong, after a day of dealing with the kids and other shenanigans... men are not as intuitive in that area and kind of have to learn on their own how those elements of emotional foreplay play into what interests versus what actually arouses us... because sometimes those things are different... and a man who is like that by default and skillful with it, that's quite a rarity... but then the flip side of this that "talent" can also be skillfully abused, since they know how to key into our inner "romantic narratives" so to speak to get the attention they want... and they can dettach emotionally very quickly... whereas with women, not so to easy shut off... ... (though men can be like this as well to a degree... and I imagine that is probably a curse). So while men have a peni that thinks for itself, being blue-balled sucks, etc... we have an emotional filter that never goes away and it's harder for us to make those feelings start once they've started... so in that way, we are emotionally blue-balled.

Anyway, because of these complexities... I don't think pansexuality is a t hing... also, there are like 50 different descriptors on the web, as I previously posted... so even if I bought that designation being important, someone else has their own definition... and I think that's a little bit too "convenient" for a designator...