[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

You dont see the difference between somebody who is sexually attracted to both genders and somebody who does not care for gender?

Enlighten me, pretend I (and anyone else who doesn't see why "pansexuality" is a thing) am an idiot. How is there a difference between someone who is attracted to both genders, and someone who doesn't mind why gender they date?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

A bi person would consider dating a man because they are sexually attracted to men and a bi person would consider dating a woman because they are sexually attracted to women. A pan person would consider dating both, but not because of sexual attraction to gender.

Sorry Withano but this is a massive oversimplification of the concept of attraction

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Enlighten me, pretend I (and anyone else who doesn't see why "pansexuality" is a thing) am an idiot. How is there a difference between someone who is attracted to both genders, and someone who doesn't mind why gender they date?

Well... to get blunt (might as well, Ive tried everything else), a bi person is typically sexually aroused by cock, pussy and tits. A pan person is not. They are sexually aroused by a persona, they dont care what bodyparts you have.

If that doesn’t work, then sleep on it.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Sorry Withano but this is a massive oversimplification of the concept of attraction

I know. I’m slowly giving up, the more thoughtful posts were towards the beginning.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

Well... to get blunt (might as well, Ive tried everything else), a bi person is typically sexually aroused by cock, pussy and tits. A pan person is not. They are sexually aroused by a persona, they dont care what bodyparts you have.

If that doesn’t work, then sleep on it.

Still not seeing why this needs a new label. Typically speaking, genitals on their own aren't all that attractive - how many girls actually appreciate dickpics? Very few, because an out of context nob isn't attractive. People of any sexuality can be aroused by a personality instead of genitals, and that doesn't make them a subset of hetero/homo/bisexuality.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Still not seeing why this needs a new label. Typically speaking, genitals on their own aren't all that attractive - how many girls actually appreciate dickpics? Very few, because an out of context nob isn't attractive. People of any sexuality can be aroused by a personality instead of genitals, and that doesn't make them a subset of heteo/homo/bisexuality.

Or a new sexuality full stop.

[Firewire]

I don't know enough about it to comment really.

But anyone is entitled to label their sexuality as they please. If that's pansexuality then let them.

[Ant.]

im a lesbian

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Withano

Well no to your second paragraph, because pansexuals do not care about the sex or gender of their partner... so, that on its own makes it very different than gay or straight people... or bi people.. who all do care about sex or gender of their partner...

I think you’re focussing on the similarities instead of the differences... the similarities being that yes, both bisexuals and pansexuals historically date both sexes... that doesnt make them the same though.

I guess it just comes down to whether you believe a person can be sexually attracted to a personality. Everything else is irrelevant, their only turn on is a personality. And I would say yes, that is possible. I don’t see that at all similar to a bisexual person. Bisexual (and heterosexual and homosexual) people are attracted to people for their genders, pansexual people are not, there are differences as well as similarities.

Jessica, for instance said she was demisexual, and that she was sexually attracted to a man once, that doesnt detract from a womans heterosexuality. They’re two separate things, with both similarities and differences.

Everyone can be attracted to a personality, it's not something that's exclusive to pansexuals. There are plenty of straight, gay and bi people out there that have had relationships with people, not because they are the best looking people around but because they've had winning personalities. Some people are attracted to people who are funny, for example. That's just a type and any person of any sexuality can have a type when it comes to attraction.

That alone is not worth it's own sexuality, especially if the definition will always be condescending and demeaning to bisexuals.

[Tom4784]

One thing I've learned in life is that if you find yourself jumping through hoops to rationalise something then it's probably not correct.

There's a lot of jumping through hoops when it comes to making out that there's any real difference between bisexuality and pansexuality.

[Ashley.]

I'm really on the outside looking in when it comes to debates like this, but from what I've gathered... All of these labels are essentially taking an already small minority and splitting it into groups of even smaller minorities, all with the common aim of being accepted but at the same time having contrasting views, as mentioned in the OP, that attack and belittle each other. And I think it's contradictory to want equality but at the same time argue that other sexualities are wrong because they don't account for 'all genders' or 'non-genders'. Of course, I'm not saying that on the whole, pansexuals are terrible etc... but I believe that creating these labels and dividing the minority hinders more than it helps.

[Cal.]

I had my first kiss with a pansexual boy

[Withano]

Theres a very large difference between being sexually attracted to both male and female genitalia, and not caring much at all for either but being sexually attracted to personality types imo.

If pan people dont associate with bi people because they literally dont share the same sexual attraction as them, then.. well.. so what?

You don’t get hetero-romantic asexuals calling themselves straight, or straight people demanding that theyre no different to them.

Pansexual people dont feel bisexual, they dont have the same sexual attraction as a bisexual person.

[thesheriff443]

It's only words at the end of the day, I find it's far easier to judge than it is to be judged.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Withano

Theres a very large difference between being sexually attracted to both male and female genitalia, and not caring much at all for either but being sexually attracted to personality types imo.

If pan people dont associate with bi people because they literally dont share the same sexual attraction as them, then.. well.. so what?

You don’t get hetero-romantic asexuals calling themselves straight, or straight people demanding that theyre no different to them.

Pansexual people dont feel bisexual, they dont have the same sexual attraction as a bisexual person.

Heterosexuality isn't some uniform experience either by the way. Some straight people give more of a damn about personality than looks. Should they be split off into divergent groupings?

Note that in that example it's only the extent or quality of the sexual attraction that differs. Not the direction. Same goes for this bisexuality-pansexuality thing you've been flogging for the last seven pages.

[RichardG]

Originally Posted by Redway

Heterosexuality isn't some uniform experience either by the way. Some straight people give more of a damn about personality than looks. Should they be split off into divergent groupings?

this is what i don't understand. i don't reach for my dick every time i see some random girl's tit, personality would arguably be the biggest factor. what does that make me? what is my diagnosis? am i now a part of the lgbt+ community? not that i particularly care anyway, these obscure genders and sexualities don't seem to matter to anyone other than those within niche internet subgroups.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by RichardG

this is what i don't understand. i don't reach for my dick every time i see some random girl's tit, personality would arguably be the biggest factor. what does that make me? what is my diagnosis? am i now a part of the lgbt+ community? not that i particularly care anyway, these obscure genders and sexualities don't seem to matter to anyone other than those within niche internet subgroups.

"A divergent and morbid form of heterosexuality wherein, contrary to the norm for young guys, he doesn't shag the first girl in the club and character usurps more of an influence of position than looks."

Charactersexual flipping pervert. How dare you place more on personality than physical appearance and still try and pass for 100% straight.

[Jack_]

Before you can even begin to unpack this question, one has to understand that the very notion of "having" a sexual orientation in the first place is not an inherent truth, but something which has been discursively produced over the last three centuries. All sexualities (and their parameters) have been created - and that's a key point.

Consider this too - there are a multitude of things that can encompass one's sexuality, narrowing it down solely to gender and/or genitalia preference is actually very delimiting. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet is an enlightening and thought-provoking read on this matter:

It is a rather amazing fact that, of the very many dimensions along which the genital activity of one person can be differentiated from that of another (dimensions that include preference for certain acts, certain zones or sensations, certain physical types, a certain frequency, certain symbolic investments, certain relations of age or power, a certain species, a certain number of participants, etc. etc. etc.), precisely one, the gender of object choice, emerged from the turn of the century, and has remained, as the dimension denoted by the now ubiquitous category of "sexual orientation". This is not a development that would have been foreseen from the viewpoint of the fin de siècle itself, where a rich stew of male algolagnia, child-love, and autoeroticism, to mention no more of its components, seemed to have as indicative a relation as did homosexuality to the whole, obsessively entertained problematic of sexual "prevision" or, more broadly, "decadence". Foucault, for instance, mentions the hysterical woman and the masturbating child, along with the "entomologized" sexological categories such as zoophiles, zooerasts, auto-monosexualists, and gynecomasts, as typifying the new sexual taxonomies, the "specification of individuals" that facilitated the modern freighting of sexual definition with epistemological and power relations. True as his notation is, it suggests without beginning to answer the further question: why the category of "the masturbator", to choose only one example, should by now have entirely lost its diacritical potential for specifying a particular kind of person, an identity, at the same time as it continues to be true - becomes increasingly true - that, for a crucial strain of Western discourse, in Foucault's words "the homosexual was now a species". So, as a result, is the heterosexual, and between these species the human species has come more and more to be divided.

(pp. 8-9)

It is certainly true that without a concept of gender there could be, quite simply, no concept of homo- or heterosexuality. But many other dimensions of sexual choice (auto- or alloerotic, within or between generations, species, etc.) have no such distinctive, explicit definitional connection with gender; indeed, some dimensions of sexuality might be tied, not to gender, but instead to differences or similarities of race or class. The definitional narrowing-down in this century of sexuality as a whole to a binarized calculus of homo- or heterosexuality is a weighty fact but an entirely historical one.

(p. 31)

So...here's where I stand. I actually agree with whoever it was that said labels cause more problems than they solve. In an ideal world, we'd completely destabilise and deconstruct sexuality (and gender too) so that it wasn't even a necessary marker of identity. The problem is that this isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future - and what's more is for hundreds of years those who have been criminalised for their sexual transgressions have sought to demand legitimacy through reclaiming the same terms by which they were marginalised in the first place (what's known as reverse discourse). And so what are we left with? The bizarre realisation that all of the normative sexualities have themselves been constructed, and yet a firm opposition to the creation of anymore? That doesn't really check out for me, it's an all or nothing deal.

I once identified as pan because I thought it was the closest thing to 'open minded' or 'not needing a label', then I realised how unbelievably ironic that was. Now? It's probably bicurious for ease-of-explanation, but even then that doesn't begin to cover the nuances. The truth is that I am That Guy who's all ~I don't like labels~ but that's only because I don't think the complexities of human sexuality can be narrowed down to convenient boxes we've created to help understand the world. But hey, if labels work for you, great! All power to you. Identify however you like...or don't at all...either way it doesn't really matter.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

It's only words at the end of the day, I find it's far easier to judge than it is to be judged.

See I don't believe that disagreeing with pansexuality or any other label is 'judging' as such... I don't believe that there should be all of these extra labels, but I don't discriminate against those who have the beliefs or ideas that belong to what is expected within those labels. I just think that it is a lot easier and a lot less complicated to have sexualities with exceptions or differences rather than dedicating a whole new notion to housing those differences.

[RichardG]

Originally Posted by Redway

"A divergent and morbid form of heterosexuality wherein, contrary to the norm for young guys, he doesn't shag the first girl in the club and character usurps more of an influence of position than looks."

Charactersexual flipping pervert. How dare you place more on personality than physical appearance and still try and pass for 100% straight.

guilty as charged your honour! lock me up and throw away the keys, along with just about every other man and woman above the age of thirteen!

honestly, if the theory goes that pansexuals are attracted to personality while the rest of us are attracted to genitals and that's that on that then we're essentially all being called perverts and i'm lowkey offended.

[Redway]

As nice as it is to philosophise about these alternatives the survival of the next generation depends on reproduction. That's not a myth that's been passed down from generation to generation. Most people are attracted to the same sex and as much as I don't have a problem with sexual minorities that's the way it needs to be.

Like I say the continuation of the human species would be up in arms if most people weren't heterosexual. That's a hard fact whether it sounds all nice and super-duper PC or not. Heterosexuality's not some abstract theory. It's a fact of life and no amount of acceptance of sexual minorities (rightfully) can change that. It's deeply rooted in biology.

[Maru]

I feel like those who are overly invested in these terms and whether they are taken seriously enough are missing the point... forget what we're called, get out there and live your life? What a way to kill the fun of one of the most liberating aspects of being human...


On pan-sexual... I won't treat it as a thing until it has a steady definition. I've watched videos where people who asked what that means struggle to describe it. Now, think about that from the view of a spectator.. if they can't put the definition of a new word into terms other people can understand without a lot of word fumbling, maybe it is not such a good term.

The version about bisexuals who will sleep with trans-folk though makes functional sense at least... because then that's a way to signal to trans-folk they are open... but again, does that deserve a new classification with regards to sexuality?

The version that makes the most sense for me is that it means they are and can be attracted to literally anything. Since pan- means 'all'...I think one definition I heard, it figured in attractions to inanimate objects, animals, other weird stuff... etc...

I Love You, Bot (Full Ep)
http://money.cnn.com/mostly-human/i-love-you-bot/

About a french lady who falls in love with and marries a 3d printed robot she made in her home.

Otherkin Therian Documentary

Youtube video

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Pansexuality is a bugbear of mine because it's very definition basically makes out that bisexuals are transphobic or lesser in comparison. I don't think there's any differences between bisexuality and pansexuality to warrant two different terms and I generally think that, when it comes to the LGBT, we should be simplifying things and not coming up with new terms that are designed to make every last person feel unique and special.

I think when it comes down to it, there's only four sexual orientations which are straight, gay, bi and Asexual. I think anything else is extraneous tbh and I cringe whenever I see someone say LGBTGSDGARASDASASHRTDFAS because it's just so extra in a bad way since it gives fuel to the fire for the people who want to dismiss the cause as a whole.

Omg i watched a youtube video about the long alphabet they've added to LGBT , they've literally added letters for the sake of it and it looks ridiculous . People apart of that community are confused by the letters themselves .

It's so long they might aswell add straight /hetro to the list , it's like a drunk person was learning the alphabet for the first time and went down a funny road of random jibberish .

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

See I don't believe that disagreeing with pansexuality or any other label is 'judging' as such... I don't believe that there should be all of these extra labels, but I don't discriminate against those who have the beliefs or ideas that belong to what is expected within those labels. I just think that it is a lot easier and a lot less complicated to have sexualities with exceptions or differences rather than dedicating a whole new notion to housing those differences.

Looking at the subject in question, you have made a judgment on what you consider to be acceptable and needed.

It's like you are saying, I'm judging but in a good way.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Withano

A bi person would consider dating a man because they are sexually attracted to men and a bi person would consider dating a woman because they are sexually attracted to women. A pan person would consider dating both, but not because of sexual attraction to gender.

Therefore a child with a cracking personality could attract the pans person..if its only personality that they become attracted to..man woman horse or child...just as long as they have the type of personality that attracts them.