[Withano]

Originally Posted by Withano

But then again, sexual attraction and attraction are still very different. And thats the difference in these sexualities.

Sexual attraction to gender A=NO, P=NO, B=YES
Sexual attraction to personality A=NO, P=YES, B=YES

All could date men and women, but it is those small differences that make their sexuality different to one another, even though, they might all date both bob and carole

Honestly think I peaked here though, I’m done for the night. That is what pansexuality means. Attraction to personality, not gender, and not both. If someone had a sexual attraction to both gender and persona, they’d be bi, if they had a sexual attraction towards neither personality nor gender, they’d be ace. All three groups do, sometimes, date both genders at different times. That doesnt make them all bi.

Dezzy’s question was is pansexuality possible. I think yes.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Withano

Honestly think I peaked here though, I’m done for the night. That is what pansexuality means. Attraction to personality, not gender, and not both. If someone had a sexual attraction to both gender and persona, they’d be bi, if they had a sexual attraction towards neither personality nor gender, they’d be ace. All three groups do, sometimes, date both genders at different times. That doesnt make them all bi.

Dezzy’s question was is pansexuality possible. I think yes.

Only if its kept in its trousers.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

Honestly think I peaked here though, I’m done for the night. That is what pansexuality means. Attraction to personality, not gender, and not both. If someone had a sexual attraction to both gender and persona, they’d be bi, if they had a sexual attraction towards neither personality nor gender, they’d be ace. All three groups do, sometimes, date both genders at different times. That doesnt make them all bi.

Dezzy’s question was is pansexuality possible. I think yes.

But you're boiling down the concept of sexual attraction - a nuanced area of psychology still under constant research, rife with debate, and absolutely FULL of individual differences - to something very basic and black-and-white that I'm pretty sure doesn't apply "in stock form" to the sexual psychology of ANY individual or at least, not to any individual who has adequately explored their sexuality in any meaningful way rather than defining it on Wikipedia.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But you're boiling down the concept of sexual attraction - a nuanced area of psychology still under constant research, rife with debate, and absolutely FULL of individual differences - to something very basic and black-and-white that I'm pretty sure doesn't apply "in stock form" to the sexual psychology of ANY individual or at least, not to any individual who has adequately explored their sexuality in any meaningful way rather than defining it on Wikipedia.

That's exactly it, TS... Wouldn't it be so much easier to accept those individual differences rather than feeling the need to separate them off into an endless list of categories? We all find different people attractive, and we all find different things attractive.

What I'm arguing is that yes, the definition of pansexuality exists but it doesn't necessarily require the label. You can be bisexual and be attracted to personality. Myself, I'm straight, I'm attracted to men but I'm more attracted to a man's personality than what they look like. I'm still a heterosexual. Or are there separate categories for heterosexuals now, too?... Obviously I'm not stating that we straight people don't need labels so let's take away yours, but the only difference I'm seeing between pansexuals and bisexuals is what about a person attracts them more and that's a common difference in everyone.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

That's exactly it, TS... Wouldn't it be so much easier to accept those individual differences rather than feeling the need to separate them off into an endless list of categories? We all find different people attractive, and we all find different things attractive.

What I'm arguing is that yes, the definition of pansexuality exists but it doesn't necessarily require the label. You can be bisexual and be attracted to personality. Myself, I'm straight, I'm attracted to men but I'm more attracted to a man's personality than what they look like. I'm still a heterosexual. Or are there separate categories for heterosexuals now, too?... Obviously I'm not stating that we straight people don't need labels so let's take away yours, but the only difference I'm seeing between pansexuals and bisexuals is what about a person attracts them more and that's a common difference in everyone.

Great post full of common sense, Ash.

I do not rate myself as some sort of intellectual 'Dummy' but I admit that I am completely confused by this subject.

I just see a need in some to keep categorising and labelling things where there is NO need to keep doing so.

Baffled.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Great post full of common sense, Ash.

I do not rate myself as some sort of intellectual 'Dummy' but I admit that I am completely confused by this subject.

I just see a need in some to keep categorising and labelling things where there is NO need to keep doing so.

Baffled.

It's not really a subject that I've looked into that much to be honest, in fact the most I've probably discussed topics like this are on TiBB. I am not a simplist, as much as my posts in this thread may give off that conclusion. I am fully aware that there are endless differences in attraction and sexuality - I saw something the other day for example, I can't remember where so I can't link it, stating that everyone has a 'percentage' of how hetero/homosexual they are. There was an entire psychological experiment on it, I believe, and not many were considered 100% or 0%. But anyway, before I start rambling - my point is that, at the time I thought so what then? Where are the lines 'drawn' to determine sexuality? Is everyone between the 1% and 99% marks, bisexual? Stay with me Kirk, this is going somewhere...

And I thought, if everyone has all these individual differences then surely the lines between sexuality are blurred or at the very least hard to apply, and if they are blurred, how can we possibly categorise everything? There's going to be crossovers - you're going to come across somebody for example who is more attracted to personality than gender, but within that has, say, a 72% likelihood of being attracted to the personality of a man/woman...

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Kirk, I agree with you. It is confusing. Sexuality is a big enough topic as it is, without making it more complicated by... adding things.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

It's not really a subject that I've looked into that much to be honest, in fact the most I've probably discussed topics like this are on TiBB. I am not a simplist, as much as my posts in this thread may give off that conclusion. I am fully aware that there are endless differences in attraction and sexuality - I saw something the other day for example, I can't remember where so I can't link it, stating that everyone has a 'percentage' of how hetero/homosexual they are. There was an entire psychological experiment on it, I believe, and not many were considered 100% or 0%. But anyway, before I start rambling - my point is that, at the time I thought so what then? Where are the lines 'drawn' to determine sexuality? Is everyone between the 1% and 99% marks, bisexual? Stay with me Kirk, this is going somewhere...

And I thought, if everyone has all these individual differences then surely the lines between sexuality are blurred or at the very least hard to apply, and if they are blurred, how can we possibly categorise everything? There's going to be crossovers - you're going to come across somebody for example who is more attracted to personality than gender, but within that has, say, a 72% likelihood of being attracted to the personality of a man/woman...

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Kirk, I agree with you. It is confusing. Sexuality is a big enough topic as it is, without making it more complicated by... adding things.

It's GREAT to be in agreement on something neither of us has a clue about.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

I guess putting it bluntly, one is pleasant/appealing, the other is hot/arousing

I'd class them both under the umbrella of "attraction", split into physical/sexual attraction and personality-based attraction.

Originally Posted by Withano

Honestly think I peaked here though, I’m done for the night. That is what pansexuality means. Attraction to personality, not gender, and not both. If someone had a sexual attraction to both gender and persona, they’d be bi

You've still not really explained the difference between "not being attracted to gender" and "being attracted to both genders". I've never heard of a bisexual person saying they're "attracted to gender".