[Ant.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

How is Person B not bisexual if s/he dates one person of each gender?

bc he's pansexual

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

If we had to only have four adjectives, I would agree. A sexual attraction to a man is very different to an attraction to a man otherwise asexuality wouldnt be a thing either (they date too)

If someone is attracted to another person in a non-sexual way, they either just like their personality and want to be friends, or the other person is someone they wouldn't find sexually attractive but would date due to their personality. Anyone can overlook appearances to date someone.

Originally Posted by Lilbro

bc he's pansexual

I've still not read anything which makes me think "pansexual" needs its own label though

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If someone is attracted to another person in a non-sexual way, they either just like their personality and want to be friends, or the other person is someone they wouldn't find sexually attractive but would date due to their personality. Anyone can overlook appearances to date someone.

An male asexual dates a man, then a woman. Is he bi? He, like a pan-guy wasnt sexually attracted to their gender.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

An male asexual dates a man, then a woman. Is he bi? He, like a pan-guy wasnt sexually attracted to their gender.

He's probably a bisexual with a very low sex drive, or just doesn't like penetrative sex for whatever reason.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

He's probably a bisexual with a very low sex drive, or just doesn't like penetrative sex for whatever reason.

Wrong. Asexual people date. Some date exclusively males, some date exclusively females, some date both. All have zero sexual interest in the people they are dating.

I was wrong all along, this was the hurdle you couldnt jump over

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

Wrong. Asexual people date. Some date exclusively males, some date exclusively females, some date both. All have zero sexual interest in the people they are dating.

I was wrong all along, this was the hurdle you couldnt jump over

Pointing out that there are straight, homosexual and bisexual variations within asexuality is actually an argument against your general view that attraction for most individuals is "about gender / gender related features". Unless you're trying to completely separate the concepts of romantic attraction and sexual desire... which would be pretty out there, and fundamentally flawed, given that if it were the case there would be far more examples of people being romantically attracted to one gender whilst sexually attracted to the other?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Pointing out that there are straight, homosexual and bisexual variations within asexuality is actually an argument against your general view that attraction for most individuals is "about gender / gender related features". Unless you're trying to completely separate the concepts of romantic attraction and sexual desire... which would be pretty out there, and fundamentally flawed, given that if it were the case there would be far more examples of people being romantically attracted to one gender whilst sexually attracted to the other?

Well romantic attraction is different to sexual attraction too, yes.

I’d be very interested in a debate on the last half of that paragraph on a different day.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

An male asexual dates a man, then a woman. Is he bi? He, like a pan-guy wasnt sexually attracted to their gender.

I don't really get where you're going with this concept of being "attracted to their gender" though. Who is attracted to gender? I mean, yes, for some people there is a specific gender preference that makes up a PART of their attraction but it's just not accurate to state that it's the core element of attraction.

And then there are people for whom gender is not a relevant component and can equally find themselves attracted to both males and females; or in other words, bisexuality.

I can still only conclude that the term "pansexuality" stems from a misunderstanding that gender IS the core pillar of "normal sexuality"...

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't really get where you're going with this concept of being "attracted to their gender" though. Who is attracted to gender? I mean, yes, for some people there is a specific gender preference that makes up a PART of their attraction but it's just not accurate to state that it's the core element of attraction.

And then there are people for whom gender is not a relevant component and can equally find themselves attracted to both males and females; or in other words, bisexuality.

I can still only conclude that the term "pansexuality" stems from a misunderstanding that gender IS the core pillar of "normal sexuality"...

Your argument TS is actually quite confusing, you fully acknowledges that asexuals are not attracted to either gender... well, nor are pan people...

at least oliver claiming that ‘an asexual who dates men and women makes them a low-sex-drive bisexual’ is consistent with everything else hes saying (incorrect pbviously, theyre still asexual.. but consistent with the rest of his arguments). You seem to be zigzagging.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

If we had to only have four adjectives, I would agree. A sexual attraction to a man is very different to an attraction to a man otherwise asexuality wouldnt be a thing either (they date too and can also be attracted to men)

Originally Posted by Withano

Well again Id ask if you think theres a difference between sexual attraction and attraction but you avoided that question like ten minutes ago. Yes or no, is it the same thing?

Originally Posted by Withano

An male asexual dates a man, then a woman. Is he bi? He, like a pan-guy wasnt sexually attracted to their gender.

These posts together...maybe made this 'click'

So basically, pansexuality is being attracted to both sexes, but not being sexually attracted to them. So basically, pansexuals are bi asexuals, for want of a better term?!

Thats the only way this is making any sense to me tbh.

Bisexuals are 'sexually attracted' to either sex.
Pansexuals are 'attracted' to either sex

If this is not what you mean, then I have no idea why you keep bringing up the difference between attraction and sexual attraction.
If this is what you mean, then surely 'pansexual' is the same as 'asexual'?! As no sexual attraction is felt?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

These posts together...maybe made this 'click'

So basically, pansexuality is being attracted to both sexes, but not being sexually attracted to them. So basically, pansexuals are bi asexuals, for want of a better term?!

Thats the only way this is making any sense to me tbh.

Bisexuals are 'sexually attracted' to either sex.
Pansexuals are 'attracted' to either sex

If this is not what you mean, then I have no idea why you keep bringing up the difference between attraction and sexual attraction.
If this is what you mean, then surely 'pansexual' is the same as 'asexual'?! As no sexual attraction is felt?

Not really the line I was on

Asexuals - zero sexual attraction at all times, but can feel attraction, so will date those they become attracted to

Pansexuals - can feel attraction, which can develop into sexual attraction, but only ever in that order

Bisexuals (and heterosexuals and homosexuals) - can feel sexual attraction before any other form of attraction, that doesnt mean they are incapable of other types of attraction, and doesnt mean they act on their sexual attraction before other forms of attraction even if it does come first. But sexual attraction to people for the way they look is somethig that pans wont experience ever.

Im trying to remember my summary a while back cos i cba to multiquote

Sexual attraction to gender A=no, P=no, B=yes
Sexual attraction to personality A=no, P=yes, B=yes
Attraction to people A=yes*, P=yes, B=yes

*there are some aromantic asexuals, but for the purposes of trying to make this clearer...!