[Withano]

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.

Your understanding of pan is different to mine.

My understanding of bi, is that gender matters. They are sexually attracted to men because they love cock (etc) and women because they love tits (etc), whereas a pansexual can love both of these genders, but not because of their genitals. Genitals arent a factor that they consider when searching for a companion, which is unlike bi people.

Bi people are sexually aroused by men and women, whereas pansexual people do not care if they are men or women, they are instead aroused by their persona, and gender would therefore not matter.

I dont even know if that makes sense, but I cant make a third paragraph on it, thats so extra.

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Withano

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

See I've heard this line of removing the sex from the whole equation before but that still doesn't make much sense to me. Ultimately you are playing with someone's genitals, whatever their gender is, so just resting and saying "I fall in love with a person, not a sex " is just incredibly condescending to anyone who identifies as anything other than pansexual. Also implies all homosexual males only like cis men, all heterosexual females only like cis men, etc. etc.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Well I'm pansexual

Originally Posted by Shaun

See I've heard this line of removing the sex from the whole equation before but that still doesn't make much sense to me. Ultimately you are playing with someone's genitals, whatever their gender is, so just resting and saying "I fall in love with a person, not a sex " is just incredibly condescending to anyone who identifies as anything other than pansexual. Also implies all homosexual males only like cis men, all heterosexual females only like cis men, etc. etc.

It doesnt really, unless you presume that hetero males always only like cis women (etc). I’m sure there are far beyond millions of self identifying heterosexual men that like transwomen too. You’re reading into the ‘trans’ thing more than I, thats not the key difference from my perspective.

The difference is bi people seeking out both genders because theyre aroused by both genders (may include trans), or pan people seeking out any gender, because they literally can be aroused by any gender depending on their personality (also, may include trans).

@Adam contributing more would be helpful if he really is pan? Am i on the right track or no?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Shaun

See I've heard this line of removing the sex from the whole equation before but that still doesn't make much sense to me. Ultimately you are playing with someone's genitals, whatever their gender is, so just resting and saying "I fall in love with a person, not a sex " is just incredibly condescending to anyone who identifies as anything other than pansexual. Also implies all homosexual males only like cis men, all heterosexual females only like cis men, etc. etc.

Well, quite.

Doesn't everyone fall in love with the person, not the genitals anyway?! I mean I have 3 friends who always considered themselves 100% straight (and in one case, 100% gay...to the point where he thought anything to do with vagina was totally vile, a sentiment seemingly shared by many on this forum ), but then fell in love with someone and basically..'got over' the fact that this person was the 'wrong' sex for the sexuality they thought they were. In one of those cases it was not so much 'got over' it, but that it didn't matter as they were in love. I cannot speak on this with any authority given I have always been bi myself mind, I can only go off what others say. But I have never really thought 'omg, he has a dick, I want it' rather than like...it being the person I was attracted to.

I guess I could maybe be described as pansexual too, if I was that pretentious. As honestly, if I was very attracted to someone I thought was a guy and it turned out they were female..it probably wouldn't bother me all that much, same as if they looked like a woman and had a dick. Which is my understanding of what pansexual is. So yes, by very definition, those describing themselves as pansexual are implying that 'mere bisexuals' are transphobic, as not all bisexual people would be happy being with someone who looked like a bloke who had a fanny, or looked like a woman and had a dick (see also cotton ceiling...which is now slowly moving onto gay men from my understanding, and its now transphobic for gay men to be..well attracted to male people. Rather than only for lesbians to be attracted to females)

Bisexual people are attracted to both sexes. Some would be fine with a mix up of both sexes. Some will not. What appears to be happening, and has been happening for some time now, is that those bisexual people who are attracted to a mismatch of sexual characteristics (including 'gender identity'..as noone can be attracted to gender identity alone as its something in the mind) are making out that there is something wrong with not being attracted to a mismatch of characteristics. Or that bisexual people who would not, for example, have sex with a butch woman, but they would with a more feminine woman...are in the wrong in some way. Or that bisexual people who would sleep with male and female people, but not someone who was female but had been taking testosterone..is transphobic.

Its just a need for more labels when really, we should be having less. And in many cases the need to be the white knight, protecting people against all those nasty people who do not want to sleep with them. Really..

I know a fair few youngsters who define themselves as 'pansexual' but have never had a relationship with anyone of the same sex, let alone the same sex but 'different'..but who will still berate lesbians for being lesbians and will sneer at bisexual people for not defining themselves as pan as apparently bi is transphobic.

This went on way longer that I meant it too, and I may add another couple of essays to this thread tbh as I posted before actually reading the thread

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

but if you like their personality INSTEAD of their gender, that makes it unique and special!!!!111one!!

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Doesn't everyone fall in love with the person, not the genitals anyway?! I mean I have 3 friends who always considered themselves 100% straight (and in one case, 100% gay...to the point where he thought anything to do with vagina was totally vile, a sentiment seemingly shared by many on this forum ), but then fell in love with someone and basically..'got over' the fact that this person was the 'wrong' sex for the sexuality they thought they were. In one of those cases it was not so much 'got over' it, but that it didn't matter as they were in love. I cannot speak on this with any authority given I have always been bi myself mind, I can only go off what others say. But I have never really thought 'omg, he has a dick, I want it' rather than like...it being the person I was attracted to.

Heh Was writing this and did not see your reply

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Withano

Your understanding of pan is different to mine.

My understanding of bi, is that gender matters. They are sexually attracted to men because they love cock (etc) and women because they love tits (etc), whereas a pansexual can love both of these genders, but not because of their genitals. Genitals arent a factor that they consider when searching for a companion, which is unlike bi people.

Bi people are sexually aroused by men and women, whereas pansexual people do not care if they are men or women, they are instead aroused by their persona, and gender would therefore not matter.

I dont even know if that makes sense, but I cant make a third paragraph on it, thats so extra.

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

Can a childs persona attract them?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Can a childs persona attract them?

I wouldnt call that pan, I’d call that something else.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Can a childs persona attract them?

i think you missed the point

[Beso]

Originally Posted by montblanc

i think you missed the point

Thats why i am asking a question thanks.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Thats why i am asking a question thanks.

oh sorry i thought you were being sarcastic

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

Your understanding of pan is different to mine.

My understanding of bi, is that gender matters. They are sexually attracted to men because they love cock (etc) and women because they love tits (etc), whereas a pansexual can love both of these genders, but not because of their genitals. Genitals arent a factor that they consider when searching for a companion, which is unlike bi people.

Bi people are sexually aroused by men and women, whereas pansexual people do not care if they are men or women, they are instead aroused by their persona, and gender would therefore not matter.

I dont even know if that makes sense, but I cant make a third paragraph on it, thats so extra.

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

It's just word vomit. A straight person might love tits, but fall in love with a flat chested woman because he loved her personality. That doesn't mean he needs a new made up label, it just means that looks/biological features aren't all that matters.

A bisexual person can be attracted to both sexes, be it for their personalities or features. There's no need to call it "pansexuality" when it's the former.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It's just word vomit. A straight person might love tits, but fall in love with a flat chested woman because he loved her personality. That doesn't mean he needs a new made up label, it just means that looks/biological features aren't all that matters.

A bisexual person can be attracted to both sexes, be it for their personalities or features. There's no need to call it "pansexuality" when it's the former.

I disagree... if theres anything that umpteen years of Big Brother, and Big Brother forums has taught me, its that plenty of people are sexually attracted to those they despise, pan people won’t relate to that.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

I disagree... if theres anything that umpteen years of Big Brother, and Big Brother forums has taught me, its that plenty of people are sexually attracted to those they despise, pan people won’t relate to that.

They're more likely to be bisexuals who won't fancy someone they don't like. Straight people can be un-attracted to people of their preferred sex if they have crappy personalities - they don't suddenly have a whole new sexuality.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

They're more likely to be bisexuals who won't fancy someone they don't like. Straight people can be un-attracted to people of their preferred sex if they have crappy personalities - they don't suddenly have a whole new sexuality.

But they’d only be heterosexual if they are sexually attracted to the opposite sex? Not really comparable to somebody who isn’t attracted to a person’s sex.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

But they’d only be heterosexual if they are sexually attracted to the opposite sex? Not really comparable to somebody who isn’t attracted to a person’s sex.

What do you mean? I said "straight person" and "preferred sex" - there are two genders, and both terms I used are gender neutral, so could apply to either. I'll rephrase then:
A straight woman can find an otherwise attractive man repulsive if he had a crappy personality. She doesn't suddenly have a whole new sexuality just because persona overrode genitals.

Likewise, a bisexual person who prioritizes personality doesn't have a whole new sexuality. It's just for them looks/genitals aren't the most important thing. There's absolutely no need to invent a new label for that.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

What do you mean? I said "straight person" and "preferred sex" - there are two genders, and both terms I used are gender neutral, so could apply to either. I'll rephrase then:
A straight woman can find an otherwise attractive man repulsive if he had a crappy personality. She doesn't suddenly have a whole new sexuality just because persona overrode genitals.

Likewise, a bisexual person who prioritizes personality doesn't have a whole new sexuality. It's just for them looks/genitals aren't the most important thing. There's absolutely no need to invent a new label for that.

And a pansexual person isn't fundamentally attracted to a persons sex, so these parallels dont really work.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

I think the difference between them is that bisexual people are attracted to two genders (hence the 'bi'), whereas pansexual preferences are indiscriminate: they don't see gender.

I don't think there's an implication of bisexual transphobia.

It's a pointless and pretentious difference, I'm bisexual and as long as I'm attracted to someone, I don't care what gender they consider themselves.

Originally Posted by TomC

I also disagree with the four sexualities thing because it contradicts my belief in the scale.

If you aren't exclusively attracted to one gender then you're bisexual in my eyes (or asexual if you have no sexual impulses at all obvi).

Originally Posted by Withano

Your understanding of pan is different to mine.

My understanding of bi, is that gender matters. They are sexually attracted to men because they love cock (etc) and women because they love tits (etc), whereas a pansexual can love both of these genders, but not because of their genitals. Genitals arent a factor that they consider when searching for a companion, which is unlike bi people.

Bi people are sexually aroused by men and women, whereas pansexual people do not care if they are men or women, they are instead aroused by their persona, and gender would therefore not matter.

I dont even know if that makes sense, but I cant make a third paragraph on it, thats so extra.

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

But by that definition it does make bisexuals look transphobic or close minded when I think most bisexuals would be DTF with trans as long as there's a sexual attraction there. I just don't think what would be a personal preference should necessitate the need for a sexuality that does have the effect of making bisexual people, regardless of their preferences, seem transphobic and like a lesser form of pansexuality.

I just find it all very pretentious.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

But by that definition it does make bisexuals look transphobic or close minded when I think most bisexuals would be DTF with trans as long as there's a sexual attraction there. I just don't think what would be a personal preference should necessitate the need for a sexuality that does have the effect of making bisexual people, regardless of their preferences, seem transphobic and like a lesser form of pansexuality.

I just find it all very pretentious.

I agree, bi people, hetero people etc etc, some are very dtf trans. Thats not the key difference between bi and pan imo.

Originally Posted by Withano

The difference is bi people seeking out both genders because theyre aroused by both genders (may include trans), or pan people seeking out any gender, because they literally can be aroused by any gender depending on their personality (also, may include trans).

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Withano

I agree, bi people, hetero people etc etc, some are very dtf trans. Thats not the key difference between bi and pan imo.

That's even worse, it sounds like you're making bi people out to be shallow sex mad maniacs, another problem with the Pansexuality label as it enforces that bisexual stereotype.

I don't think you can explain your way around it, the pansexual label is inherently condescending and outright derogatory to bisexuals, it demeans us, it reduces us to our base extincts and takes away the luxury of preference that other sexualities are seemingly allowed to have without being demeaned by a pretentious alternative.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

That's even worse, it sounds like you're making bi people out to be shallow sex mad maniacs, another problem with the Pansexuality label as it enforces that bisexual stereotype.

I don't think you can explain your way around it, the pansexual label is inherently condescending and outright derogatory to bisexuals, it demeans us, it reduces us to our base extincts and takes away the luxury of preference that other sexualities are seemingly allowed to have without being demeaned by a pretentious alternative.

Well, I think that what it means? Dont shoot the messenger lol.

Some people are sexually attracted to men because they are men, some people are sexually attracted to women because they are women, bi people are sexually attracted to both, asexual people are sexually attracted to neither, pansexual people are sexually attracted to personality.

I guess people can be sexually attracted to literally anything... even objects or animals... if some people say they are sexually attracted to personalities, instead of persons, then theres a label for that.

Thats my understanding of it anyway. Pans would still want to **** them silly once they find the sexiest persona. They’re no less of a sex-mad-maniac than the average bi, I’d imagine.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Withano

Well, I think that what it means? Dont shoot the messenger lol.

Some people are sexually attracted to men because they are men, some people are sexually attracted to women because they are women, bi people are sexually attracted to both, asexual people are sexually attracted to neither, pansexual people are sexually attracted to personality.

I guess people can be sexually attracted to literally anything... even objects or animals... if some people say they are sexually attracted to personalities, instead of persons, then theres a label for that.

Thats my understanding of it anyway. Pans would still want to **** them silly once they find the sexiest persona. They’re no less of a sex-mad-maniac than the average bi, I’d imagine.

I'm not having a go, I'm just responding.

Are there pansexual equivalents to straight or gay people who don'tare attracted to personalities? If not, why? Why are bisexuals the only orientation that's demeaned in such a way?

No matter how you cut it, there's really no meaningful differences between bisexuality or pansexuality aside from the latter's existence makes the former seem less valid or hateful.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm not having a go, I'm just responding.

Are there pansexual equivalents to straight or gay people who don'tare attracted to personalities? If not, why? Why are bisexuals the only orientation that's demeaned in such a way?

No matter how you cut it, there's really no meaningful differences between bisexuality or pansexuality aside from the latter's existence makes the former seem less valid or hateful.

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.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

If you aren't exclusively attracted to one gender then you're bisexual in my eyes (or asexual if you have no sexual impulses at all obvi).

I am only attracted to men I see in the street and could only see myself in a relationship with men. But I'd love to have sex with a girl before I die.

Does that make me bisexual?

I think saying one smidgen of attraction to the same sex, or even curiousity, constitutes a bisexual is a bit crude, no?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by TomC

I am only attracted to men I see in the street and could only see myself in a relationship with men. But I'd love to have sex with a girl before I die.

Does that make me bisexual?

I think saying one smidgen of attraction to the same sex, or even curiousity, constitutes a bisexual is a bit crude, no?

I agree with you on that - it just makes you a gay who wants to experiment. Wanting to experiment outside of your sexuality doesn't really make someone bi, imo.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

I am only attracted to men I see in the street and could only see myself in a relationship with men. But I'd love to have sex with a girl before I die.

Does that make me bisexual?

I think saying one smidgen of attraction to the same sex, or even curiousity, constitutes a bisexual is a bit crude, no?

But are you attracted to girls in any shape or form or are just intrigued about what hetero sex would be like?

Sexual orientation is decided by attraction, a person could **** both genders but could still be considered straight or gay if they are only attracted to one gender.