[Maru]

This is so confusing. pan- has nothing to do with personality, neither does 'sexual' actually. I think there's been a bait & switch somewhere with this term... is my thought.

Prefix

Pan-, a prefix from the Greek πᾶν, pan, meaning "all", "of everything", or "involving all members" of a group

Pan-Asianism (also known as Asianism or Greater Asianism) is an ideology that promotes the unity of Asian peoples. Several theories and movements of Pan-Asianism have been proposed, specifically from East, South and Southeast Asia. Motivating the movement has been resistance to Western imperialism and colonialism and a belief that "Asian values" should take precedence over "European values." During the Cold War, the movement became less vigorous, as nations in the region aligned with one or the other of the superpowers.

Pan-American, Pan American, Panamerican, Pan-America, Pan America or Panamerica may refer to:

• Collectively, the Americas: North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean
• Something of, from, or related to butts
• Pan-Americanism, an integrationist movement among the nations of the Americas

I'm sticking to mah vote.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Maru

This is so confusing. pan- has nothing to do with personality, neither does 'sexual' actually. I think there's been a bait & switch somewhere with this term... is my thought.

I think its just that all the other words in the dictionary have been used to describe someones preferences.

[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".

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

This is so confusing. pan- has nothing to do with personality, neither does 'sexual' actually. I think there's been a bait & switch somewhere with this term... is my thought.







I'm sticking to mah vote.

That's TWO of us.

[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.

[Jamie89]

Sexuality's very complicated but also really simple, depending on what aspect is actually being talked about. The way I see it is that sexuality includes so many differences, and labels such as 'pansexual' address those differences (if someone so chooses to apply it to themselves). But then there's 'sexual orientation' (gay/straight/bisexual) which isn't so much about those nuances, but quite straight forward, in that it ignores the many possible reasons why someone is sexually attracted to someone else, it's just that they are attracted. It's not what leads to a sexual act taking place, it's who the sexual act is with. So in a way, 'pansexual' is more a descriptor of the individual, a statement expressing their wider views on gender identity/nonbinary genders, and also that they want people to know what those views are. It might be that one person wants to do so because they think it sounds superior to just saying they're 'bisexual', or it may be that they want people who identify with non binary genders to feel more validated, there's a whole load of reasons why someone might want to associate with a label. Orientation isn't an expression of beliefs or attitudes though and is simply determined by the resulting sexual relationships. And labels regarding orientation I think are really quite important since they have certain legal protections associated with them which we had to fight for, and is another reason why I think it's useful not to get muddled up between orientation and other preferences/identities/nuances of sexuality etc. Those laws don't see gender identity (and neither does the marginalisation of gay and lesbian people), they're specifically about the sex of the people you sleep with.

Put simply, you can tell if someone is gay/straight/bi/asexual based on who they do or don't want to have sex with. You can't tell if someone is pansexual based on that. And that's because it's a description of that persons personal attitudes within their sexual orientation, rather than an expression of orientation itself, which is what bisexuality is. But yes it's still valid for what it is.

As for whether or not labels like pansexual are important. They're important if the individual using them to describe themselves considers them important I suppose. They can have certain social benefits if you want people to know what your 'type' is, or as a way of sharing something about your views. If someone is using their label to put someone else down then they're just a twat tbh But I don't think that's necessarily a problem with the label... some people are just twats.

[parmnion]

Couldnt pan be further broken down into what type of personality they go for..like liking a blokey bloke..or a girly girl..etc etc etc.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

Baffled.

Originally Posted by Jamie89

They're important if the individual using them to describe themselves considers them important I suppose. They can have certain social benefits if you want people to know what your 'type' is, or as a way of sharing something about your views.

I guess, in terms of the question there Kirk and this part of what Jamie has said, I'm wondering if the "labelling culture" might be quite strongly linked to the fairly new "tech dating" trend? Pretty much the number one way for people to meet these days is through dating sites and apps... where people are sort of "selling themselves", trying to get across as much information as they can about themself in as small a space as possible, without their potential match getting bored and "swiping away" to the next person. So people feel like they need to be able to say "I am THIS, THIS and THIS, are you interested??" and the easiest way to do that, is to have everyone categorised... sort of... pre-packaged I guess? In a way that lets people know roughly what to expect from bare minimum interaction.

[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.

[Maru]

@Jamie98 I was about to call your aid, as you are usually so good with these topics.

Anyway, back to pan...

If it's so subtly nuanced, then it's no wonder it's not setting off a lightbulbs for me. The pan- prefix is misleading because it's an unexpected usage given the class of words it's being used alongside. So that doesn't help...

I have not heard about the attracted to personality definition before this thread, but maybe it was poorly explained before. And even then, I still can't say I understand it completely either...

To be 100% honest here, if I were dating and I'd read on an app that the person was pansexy/etc, I'd probably swipe to reject. By first impressions, it's thinking a bit too hard and taking oneself too seriously. Kind of like how things like 'gluten intolerance' crept into people's lexicon when those persons became members of certain subcultures...

But perhaps this is the intention... to signal to others within your common subculture that you. are. game. Bring me all your pansexual peni-... but for everyone else who can't wrap their little brains around my pansexiness, stay away... too "-normative", etc

Anyway, when I hear these nuanced terms I do sometimes think they're a bat signal to others within a subculture that they fit into the deep thinking definition, more sensitive in an otherworldly sense type of person, but it doesn't really imply any actual depth if that makes any sense. So, again, it would be a red flag for me, because it may imply a preoccupation with oneself. I've met those folk before when I was dating (a long time ago

Spoiler:

), and if I got it even slightly wrong one of those nuances, they were very unforgiving and took it very seriously my getting it correct the next time...

This isn't me trying to pan the pan-sexual crowd (pun unintended)... just that if I were dating, this would be a huge stressor for me, deciding which side of the pan-sexual crowd that person fits in... genuine or superficial and I'd secretly worry if they were a furry (because I've seen that). Which is a failure of a label really... because shouldn't such labels enlighten or at least raise our awareness a bit on what those distinctive differences might be. Pan- doesn't clear this up because again, where is the "all"? I would think maybe a very likely chance there would be an irresolvable compatibility issue if I can't see myself simply slip my feet into their shoes after meeting them for a bit the first time, if simple labels present such obvious questions ... anyway, I wouldn't use the term in my dating profile, even if I identified that way, just because it fails the basic function of helping the other person screen whether we are actually compatible or not... (edit: unless I intentionally want to restrict my dating pool... )

I don't think labels by themselves are harmful, they're meant to be assistive. Like anything in life though, they come with preexisting connections and messages that can't be completely divorced from culture or other words in that same category (just like particular colors, smells, environments, etc)... which is why I'm trying to figure out where does this term apply in the culture in which we all currently reside in? I think resolve that and then it's easier to absorb pansexy's interpretation and to understand it's core meaning... we use words as social tools to relate to each other... it's like in graphic design... don't use words, messaging or colors in such a way that they connect others (unintentionally or not) to negative outcomes ... the goal should be crystal clear.

Googling this term makes it even more confusing!!

Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/pansexual

pan·sex·u·al (păn-sĕk′sho͞o-əl)
adj.
Relating to, having, or open to sexual activity of many kinds.

Wiki agrees with Dezzy it seems...

Wikipedia: Pansexuality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality

Pansexuality, or omnisexuality,[1] is the sexual, romantic or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity.[2][3] Pansexual people may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are not determining factors in their romantic or sexual attraction to others.[4][5]

Pansexuality may be considered a sexual orientation in its own right or a branch of bisexuality, to indicate an alternative sexual identity.[3][6][7] Because pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, and pansexuality therefore rejects the gender binary,[3][7] it is often considered a more inclusive term than bisexual.[8][9] To what extent the term bisexual is inclusive when compared with the term pansexual is debated within the LGBT community, especially the bisexual community.[9]

5 pansexual misconceptions that are just plain wrong
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love...meaning-myths/

2. We only fancy people based on their personality

There's a word for that: demisexual (when you only ever experience attraction to others after getting to know them).

I fully believe that you can be a shallow-ass person when it comes to looks (I know I am!) and still be fiercely pansexual.

I find the whole demi-sexual thing fascinating though. I think because I've always been a bit of a prude until I trust that someone exclusively... there's guys I dated that I wouldn't even let touch my hand. The idea of doing more with them grossed me out (it was in high school...)... but my trust can come quickly depending on the person, and so I can start seeing them that way relatively quickly... I just always thought I had very solid emotional and sexual brakes But anyway, I think most women have these brakes to a degree... that's why the men are sometimes annoyed with us and evolution doesn't kick us in our butts.

[Redway]

What do you think about agender people Withano? Males who get vexed whenever someone assumes their gender just because they’ve got a dick.

[Northern Monkey]

So after reading most of this thread and being confused as feck i decided to take my research to that bastion of intellectualism - YouTube.

Unfortunately it seems that the scholars of all things gender and sexuality related are just as fecking confused as the rest of us as they don’t agree themselves on the definition.
Hardly a coherent definition or differentiation to be heard.

I think what i got from it if anything was that ‘Pansexual’ seems to be a term used by those people who don’t believe in the so called ‘gender binary’ of man and woman.The kind of people who believe in the 72 genders theory.
This is still confusing.

So since nobody actually knows what it is.I conclude that it’s actually a load of bollocks.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

So after reading most of this thread and being confused as feck i decided to take my research to that bastion of intellectualism - YouTube.

Unfortunately it seems that the scholars of all things gender and sexuality related are just as fecking confused as the rest of us as they don’t agree themselves on the definition.
Hardly a coherent definition or differentiation to be heard.

I think what i got from it if anything was that ‘Pansexual’ seems to be a term used by those people who don’t believe in the so called ‘gender binary’ of man and woman.The kind of people who believe in the 72 genders theory.
This is still confusing.

So since nobody actually knows what it is.I conclude that it’s actually a load of bollocks.

[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.

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by Redway

Oh and a demisexual is a person who can't experience sexual attraction without an emotional connection. True phenomenon obviously. Especially for females.

Distinct sexuality? Mhm. Is it really?

It's mine, so yes.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I mean.This is a small sample of the incoherent waffle we’re dealing with.

Youtube video

I can’t make head nor tail of it.See if you understand it more and i’m missing something?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Youtube video

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I mean.This is a small sample of the incoherent waffle we’re dealing with.

Youtube video

I can’t make head nor tail of it.See if you understand it more and i’m missing something?

Nope, I can't follow any of it. Seriously, I am totally confused by this.

Don't get me wrong though, if someone wants to label themselves as 'Pansexual' I'm all for it - it isn't harming or affecting me in any way.

[Maru]

All I can gather is that it has to do with which label a person prefers. Bi- and pan- are interchangeable... in most cases?...

[Tom4784]

She did hit up on a good point in that video, that Pansexuals don't necessarily have to deal with the 'baggage' of being bi which I think is potentially a reason why people say they are pansexual, kinda like how some gay people will say they are bi because they don't want to admit they are gay.

The only differences between the two are perceived differences, not actual differences.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

She did hit up on a good point in that video, that Pansexuals don't necessarily have to deal with the 'baggage' of being bi which I think is potentially a reason why people say they are pansexual, kinda like how some gay people will say they are bi because they don't want to admit they are gay.

The only differences between the two are perceived differences, not actual differences.

Ironically, I'd argue bi- has the least baggage... just because pannysexual is more likely to be linked with SJW’s (the pejorative version) and furry people since it’s definition is so easily manipulated by random folk it appears

Pansexual itself as a term is more fun and interesting I guess, because it draws more curiosity (and controversy) ... as clearly seen by the responses to this thread.

That's another thing I've noticed. “Controversy” itself is trendy now. Whereas, it used to be all about being a rebel, but you were still near the edge of the box so to speak (outside the box, but not way out there in outer space, like a weirdo...)... Nobody wanted to be misconstrued as an anti-social freak in the 90's, it was forbidden... now that seems to be “in” in a way. More likely to be called a creative and some other free thinker... which is good in a way because people now give others a second look, but at the same time some of the more mundane aspects of life are getting brand new complicated and (sometimes confusing) re-definitions on the basis of abstract situations or outliers... but even to mention or talk about those outliers a conversation can cause major offense.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Maru

Ironically, I'd argue bi- has the least baggage... just because pannysexual is more likely to be linked with SJW’s (the pejorative version) and furry people since it’s definition is so easily manipulated by random folk it appears

Pansexual itself as a term is more fun and interesting I guess, because it draws more curiosity (and controversy) ... as clearly seen by the responses to this thread.

That's another thing I've noticed. “Controversy” itself is trendy now. Whereas, it used to be all about being a rebel, but you were still near the edge of the box so to speak (outside the box, but not way out there in outer space, like a weirdo...)... Nobody wanted to be misconstrued as an anti-social freak in the 90's, it was forbidden... now that seems to be “in” in a way. More likely to be called a creative and some other free thinker... which is good in a way because people now give others a second look, but at the same time some of the more mundane aspects of life are getting brand new complicated and (sometimes confusing) re-definitions on the basis of abstract situations or outliers... but even to mention or talk about those outliers a conversation can cause major offense.

Being bisexual comes with it's own problems, especially if you're a man since a lot of people will think male bisexuals are gay people in denial, plus you have the stereotype that bisexual people are untrustworthy or more likely to cheat among other things.

I think the LGBT community can also be very unwelcoming to bisexual people as well, attitudes like Christopher Biggins' for example can be sadly quite common.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Nope, I can't follow any of it. Seriously, I am totally confused by this.

Don't get me wrong though, if someone wants to label themselves as 'Pansexual' I'm all for it - it isn't harming or affecting me in any way.

People can call themselves what they like. But like non-binary gender identities, "pansexual" has no validity or relevance outside of the person's head.

[Ammi]

...I guess what my thoughts are..(..ultimately...)...is that our sexuality is something inherent in us, that’s predetermined at birth...and whether we’re heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual etc...whatever our sexuality is, we find an ‘identifier../..a descriptor..’../type thing which identifies our own sexuality...for pansexual, some who identify as pansexual..?...it’s because they don’t feel or may not feel that ‘bisexual’ would be a correct or accurate identifier for them and their sexuality...I don’t think it’s any type of wanting to feel special in any type of way...but just more figuring out the definition of their sexuality...as sexuality is so much a part of people...

...and I guess for some ..(...as Jamie has said..)...that ‘label’ is important and as Withano has said...those ‘differences’ are important because they’re important to that pansexual person or those pansexual people who feel those terms and ‘identifiers’ are important and who feel that ‘bi’ does not really describe them in terms of their sexuality...beyond that though, too many labels just create confusion..(..I think...)...so become counterproductive to understanding, I fear....