[user104658]

I just think it's a huge oversimplification of heterosexual sexuality to say that it's about "liking specific genitals".

I can aesthetically appreciate the female form. I can aesthetically appreciate the male form. I (thus far I suppose??) have never been interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with a male. And my attraction to females isn't 100% reliant on stereotypical "attractive norms". Is anyone's? If someone is attracted to one brunette with a certain body type, does that mean they will DEFINITELY be attracted to a different brunette with that body type, if she has a different personality and carries herself differently?

For example, there's a reason that that old phrase "Oh you'll like him / her, they're JUST your type!" rarely works. The person who is supposed to like this other person who is their "type" nine times out of ten will be like "Meh... Nah."... Because attraction is subtle and nuanced.

Also the reason that you can be highly attracted to, say, a TV or movie character... But be left completely cold when you see the actor in an interview, if the actor is nothing like the role they're playing.

This is normal sexuality. I get the feeling that those arguing for "pansexuality" don't get that attraction to personality is a HUGE (the biggest) component in all sexualities?

[Ammi]

....hmmmm I just think that, that’s expanding it out a little too far TS...for the moment anyway because there is always going to be many factors which are individual to people in terms of ‘attraction’ that extend beyond ‘physical’...


...i’m a little bit Dezzy and a little bit Withano on this...(..Dezzano....?...)...I do feel that before ‘similarities’ are looked at in terms of umbrellas etc...differences first have to be recognised and acknowledged....(...my understanding has always been ...and thank you Jack for helping with that in some chats many tides ago that we had, you and I.....)...that for instance when we look at a visual, physical instinct attraction for instance...like say, looking at a pic of a celebrity and thinking...yeah that person is ‘hot’/attractive etc...it’s something that many can relate to, whatever their sexuality...a physical thing about someone that would instinctively attract the eye attention as it were..?....but not so for a pansexual person as ‘physical’ is not a factor at all in that initial thing...so basically there could never be an ‘initial thing’ I guess...it would be personality/character etc...(...and attributes of character would differ in each individual pansexual also, I would say...)...but the fundamental difference to be acknowledged is that a person’s character to whatever degree would have to be displayed/to be seen first...

...I do feel that ‘labelling’ can be so counter productive and many labels can create so much confusion as to ‘alienate and switch off’ as well for so many people...(..but as we seem to very much be in a labelling society’..)....it’s inevitable that people don’t want to be labelled incorrectly...and that for me is where it’s important to acknowledge differences in sexualities...before we can reach similarities that may bring it all to a less confusing place in terms of umbrellas branching out etc....

[Ammi]

...in my head this all makes sense...but it is quite a complex thing...but of complete importance to so many people that their sexuality is understood.../...for its differences as well as its similarities....

[Ammi]

..yeah I do think pansexuality is a thing, did I say that...it may be a thing that can ...(...at some point...)...be snuggled under the umbrella of another thing...but surely the thing of its differences have to be understood and acknowledged first...that’s the thing...the thing I’m thinking atm...




....oh what a thing...etc...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

....hmmmm I just think that, that’s expanding it out a little too far TS...for the moment anyway because there is always going to be many factors which are individual to people in terms of ‘attraction’ that extend beyond ‘physical’...


...i’m a little bit Dezzy and a little bit Withano on this...(..Dezzano....?...)...I do feel that before ‘similarities’ are looked at in terms of umbrellas etc...differences first have to be recognised and acknowledged....(...my understanding has always been ...and thank you Jack for helping with that in some chats many tides ago that we had, you and I.....)...that for instance when we look at a visual, physical instinct attraction for instance...like say, looking at a pic of a celebrity and thinking...yeah that person is ‘hot’/attractive etc...it’s something that many can relate to, whatever their sexuality...a physical thing about someone that would instinctively attract the eye attention as it were..?....but not so for a pansexual person as ‘physical’ is not a factor at all in that initial thing...so basically there could never be an ‘initial thing’ I guess...it would be personality/character etc...(...and attributes of character would differ in each individual pansexual also, I would say...)...but the fundamental difference to be acknowledged is that a person’s character to whatever degree would have to be displayed/to be seen first...

...I do feel that ‘labelling’ can be so counter productive and many labels can create so much confusion as to ‘alienate and switch off’ as well for so many people...(..but as we seem to very much be in a labelling society’..)....it’s inevitable that people don’t want to be labelled incorrectly...and that for me is where it’s important to acknowledge differences in sexualities...before we can reach similarities that may bring it all to a less confusing place in terms of umbrellas branching out etc....

I agree with the labelling, and that's sort of what I'm trying to say, I guess. Sexuality is such a nuanced and complicated psychological thing for EVERY individual that it just doesn't really lend itself to categorisation as solidly as many people seem to think (or seem to wish?) it does. For example, speaking of physical attraction being a factor, this isn't a "yes/no" question... it matters entirely to some (very shallow) people, a lot to some people, somewhat to others, not much to others, hardly at all to some... not at all to some. It's an entire sliding scale, surely... at what point on that scale does a bisexual individual "suddenly" become pansexual?

Where has the idea that heterosexuality is "simple" come from, I suppose is my question? It isn't, it's infinitely complex, and entirely individual... literally no two people of any sexual persuasion have "identical" sexualities, and therefore, the labelling is of absolutely no utility in terms of personal identity. One's sexuality is what it is, and doesn't need to be labelled. So... with that being the case... the only point in labelling at all is as an indicator to potential partners. For that purpose, straight/gay/bi is all that's really needed. The idea that we have to add "pan" to indicate "open to trans" is sort of offensive, surely? All that really needs to be said on that is that it's a personal preference / philosophical issue... it doesn't need its own term... that's like saying we need terms for people who are/aren't open to relationships with fat people, or open to relationships with bald men.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The idea that we have to add "pan" to indicate "open to trans" is sort of offensive, surely? All that really needs to be said on that is that it's a personal preference / philosophical issue... it doesn't need its own term... that's like saying we need terms for people who are/aren't open to relationships with fat people, or open to relationships with bald men.

that's sort of thing already exists, e.g in gay community you have chubby chasers, bear lovers etc
must say I haven't thought of that much but my gut instinct is not to see bi as transphobic anymore than homo is heterophobic
I may be wrong, but I see bi as liking people with well-defined genders i.e they may be happy with a fully trasitioned trans but not with a trans half-way through a transition, whereas a pansexual doesn't give a hoot about such details
so bi: male + female, pan: male, intersex, female
correct me if I'm simplifying

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

I may be wrong, but I see bi as liking people with well-defined genders i.e they may be happy with a fully trasitioned trans but not with a trans half-way through a transition, whereas a pansexual doesn't give a hoot about such details

Nah, I don't think willingness to date traps really comes into it either. The Youtube Blaire White has said that all of her boyfriends had only been with biological women before her, and that they were able to get over the fact she has a dick. They don't need a special label, they're just straight guys who have an unusual girlfriend.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Nah, I don't think willingness to date traps really comes into it either. The Youtube Blaire White has said that all of her boyfriends had only been with biological women before her, and that they were able to get over the fact she has a dick. They don't need a special label, they're just straight guys who have an unusual girlfriend.

I'd disagree. Mind you the fact that there are so many varieties makes the whole issue very complex.
In my book, pans would be happy with any shape or form of intersex. Your guy may be ok with a regular-looking chick with a dick, but what about an androgynous person who doesn't look like a conventional male or female?
Also in your example, is he "overlooking" her dick or is he celebrating it? I.e does he make her tuck it or does he suck it? It may seem like an unnecessarily graphic detail at first, but to the guy it may mean a lot in terms of how he sees her. He may be dating her becuse the chick/dick combination is just perfect for him or he may be dating her despite the dick (attracted to the rest of her, dick seen as a unfortunate blemish on his perfect woman).

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Also in your example, is he "overlooking" her dick or is he celebrating it? I.e does he make her tuck it or does he suck it? It may seem like an unnecessarily graphic detail at first, but to the guy it may mean a lot in terms of how he sees her. He may be dating her becuse the chick/dick combination is just perfect for him or he may be dating her despite the dick (attracted to the rest of her, dick seen as a unfortunate blemish on his perfect woman).

Well I'm not friends with her or her bf, she's just a youtuber I watch occasionally, and the most detail she's gone into is that sex with her bfs now is the same as it was when she was "still a guy", so I'm guessing that if her bfs don't actively "celebrate" it, they're willing to interact with it haha.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

that's sort of thing already exists, e.g in gay community you have chubby chasers, bear lovers etc
must say I haven't thought of that much but my gut instinct is not to see bi as transphobic anymore than homo is heterophobic
I may be wrong, but I see bi as liking people with well-defined genders i.e they may be happy with a fully trasitioned trans but not with a trans half-way through a transition, whereas a pansexual doesn't give a hoot about such details
so bi: male + female, pan: male, intersex, female
correct me if I'm simplifying

Sure but "chubby chasers" don't label themselves crassusexual, or "bear lovers" ... Ursasexual I guess? That's sort of the point. A personal preference does not necessarily have to have "its own sexuality"...

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Sure but "chubby chasers" don't label themselves crassusexual, or "bear lovers" ... Ursasexual I guess? That's sort of the point. A personal preference does not necessarily have to have "its own sexuality"...

ignore that first bit, I got it wrong; I'm sort of thinking about it as I write, don't have preset opinions, just trying to find out how I feel about it all
I'd be interested in your reply to the rest of my post

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree with the labelling, and that's sort of what I'm trying to say, I guess. Sexuality is such a nuanced and complicated psychological thing for EVERY individual that it just doesn't really lend itself to categorisation as solidly as many people seem to think (or seem to wish?) it does. For example, speaking of physical attraction being a factor, this isn't a "yes/no" question... it matters entirely to some (very shallow) people, a lot to some people, somewhat to others, not much to others, hardly at all to some... not at all to some. It's an entire sliding scale, surely... at what point on that scale does a bisexual individual "suddenly" become pansexual?

Where has the idea that heterosexuality is "simple" come from, I suppose is my question? It isn't, it's infinitely complex, and entirely individual... literally no two people of any sexual persuasion have "identical" sexualities, and therefore, the labelling is of absolutely no utility in terms of personal identity. One's sexuality is what it is, and doesn't need to be labelled. So... with that being the case... the only point in labelling at all is as an indicator to potential partners. For that purpose, straight/gay/bi is all that's really needed. The idea that we have to add "pan" to indicate "open to trans" is sort of offensive, surely? All that really needs to be said on that is that it's a personal preference / philosophical issue... it doesn't need its own term... that's like saying we need terms for people who are/aren't open to relationships with fat people, or open to relationships with bald men.

...yeah I completely understand everything you’re saying TS...(..you and I are never really far away on the thoughts and mindset page with many things, I feel..)...I think for me actually with some of my thoughts, there are similarities when you and I were discussing feminism...(..ish....)...in that ‘equality of recognition and understanding etc’ has to be reached first...to question if pansexual is a thing for instance...(..when it most definately is a thing for those who identify as pansexual..)...really doesn’t give it an equal status, does it...I mean even just the questioning of it...so that recognition has to be reached first...as with other and all sexualities who (..atm..)...don’t feel they are being defined correctly or accurately by specific umbrellas, as it were...so it’s looking at and acknowledging the differences first ...which would then for me, lead to looking at and acknowledging the similarities...and then leading again onto being able to start to ‘simplify’ what could be pulled under certain umbrellas for a better understanding and progression...


...and I do agree with ‘labels’ also, which I think I said...but I think that’s probably also a little bit of a ‘necessary phase in time’...because there is so much scope for openness about sexuality now, more so than any other time...so I think in time as well and with that understanding and acknowledgement of all of our differences, as it were...there will be less labelling as time goes by...as our ‘human understanding’ grows....

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just think it's a huge oversimplification of heterosexual sexuality to say that it's about "liking specific genitals".

I can aesthetically appreciate the female form. I can aesthetically appreciate the male form. I (thus far I suppose??) have never been interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with a male. And my attraction to females isn't 100% reliant on stereotypical "attractive norms". Is anyone's? If someone is attracted to one brunette with a certain body type, does that mean they will DEFINITELY be attracted to a different brunette with that body type, if she has a different personality and carries herself differently?

For example, there's a reason that that old phrase "Oh you'll like him / her, they're JUST your type!" rarely works. The person who is supposed to like this other person who is their "type" nine times out of ten will be like "Meh... Nah."... Because attraction is subtle and nuanced.

Also the reason that you can be highly attracted to, say, a TV or movie character... But be left completely cold when you see the actor in an interview, if the actor is nothing like the role they're playing.

This is normal sexuality. I get the feeling that those arguing for "pansexuality" don't get that attraction to personality is a HUGE (the biggest) component in all sexualities?

A great post T.S. I agree entirely.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just think it's a huge oversimplification of heterosexual sexuality to say that it's about "liking specific genitals".

I can aesthetically appreciate the female form. I can aesthetically appreciate the male form. I (thus far I suppose??) have never been interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with a male. And my attraction to females isn't 100% reliant on stereotypical "attractive norms". Is anyone's? If someone is attracted to one brunette with a certain body type, does that mean they will DEFINITELY be attracted to a different brunette with that body type, if she has a different personality and carries herself differently?

For example, there's a reason that that old phrase "Oh you'll like him / her, they're JUST your type!" rarely works. The person who is supposed to like this other person who is their "type" nine times out of ten will be like "Meh... Nah."... Because attraction is subtle and nuanced.

Also the reason that you can be highly attracted to, say, a TV or movie character... But be left completely cold when you see the actor in an interview, if the actor is nothing like the role they're playing.

This is normal sexuality. I get the feeling that those arguing for "pansexuality" don't get that attraction to personality is a HUGE (the biggest) component in all sexualities?

Yeah totally agree with that

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just think it's a huge oversimplification of heterosexual sexuality to say that it's about "liking specific genitals".

I can aesthetically appreciate the female form. I can aesthetically appreciate the male form. I (thus far I suppose??) have never been interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with a male. And my attraction to females isn't 100% reliant on stereotypical "attractive norms". Is anyone's? If someone is attracted to one brunette with a certain body type, does that mean they will DEFINITELY be attracted to a different brunette with that body type, if she has a different personality and carries herself differently?

For example, there's a reason that that old phrase "Oh you'll like him / her, they're JUST your type!" rarely works. The person who is supposed to like this other person who is their "type" nine times out of ten will be like "Meh... Nah."... Because attraction is subtle and nuanced.

Also the reason that you can be highly attracted to, say, a TV or movie character... But be left completely cold when you see the actor in an interview, if the actor is nothing like the role they're playing.

This is normal sexuality. I get the feeling that those arguing for "pansexuality" don't get that attraction to personality is a HUGE (the biggest) component in all sexualities?

Amazing post tbh, but especially the bolded parts.

I never really thought about this before, but yeah, the TV character thing is spot on. I fancy some actors so much in some stuff, and then in other stuff just..no, or yeah in TV interviews and that too. I never really thought about it too much but of course its because of the character, rather than the looks.

A great example of this I think for me is, and this will show how my type is 'generally' geeky, but not 'geeky' as in appearance especially..is criminal minds. Not sure how many people on here watch it mind..but yeah. There is a character on it called Spencer Reid. I thought he was fairly gross tbh when I started watching it. But after maybe half a series, I fancied him like mad, and still do...and have just recently found out that hes actually a model too..so quite how I ever thought he was gross on first impressions is beyond me, but I did Was the same with Dexter Morgan, not attracted to him at all, then fancied him like mad from a few episodes in...right up til the end. However, watching the actor in other stuff, or in interviews is just such a nono...its Dexter Morgan that I fancy, not Michael C Hall.

This happens near every year on BB too. I can really fancy people on first appearances (which is probably how I had so many one night stands when younger tbh, with people I had just met) but once I know their personality too..everything changes. the best example of this I think was Dale in BB9. He was stunning. But after a couple of weeks? I found him grotesque tbh. Going the opposite way..Freddie in BB10. Thought he was not attractive at all, but come halfway through the series, I fancied him like mad. And then started going off him in that way once he started getting really arrogant (something I tend to hate in people) and now, cannot see what the hell I ever saw in him, though still appreciate him as a housemate.

I am bisexual, I think females and female bodies are much much better to look at than male ones, however I prefer actually having sex with male people..as there are so many other differences than just ****ing genitals. I do, however, prefer kissing female people. Maybe I have just had good luck with the females I have kissed, but women kiss so much better than men do tbh

So yeah, of course its all so much more complicated than some would have us believe. Some people are shallow enough to be only interested in aesthetics...but the vast6 vast majority I would wager, care about so much more than just looks...or genitals. Genitals are odd looking things anyway, I think. I cannot imagine being attracted to a walking vagina, and I would just piss myself laughing at a walking cock and balls.