[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Else all these labels would fit the huge majority of people most of the time too. Thats an option. Where homo, hetero, bi or asexual would not fit near all people.

I don’t think its my place to define you, go with whatever works for you.. There probably is a comfortable place in the middle of bi and pan, I don’t know if there is a word for this yet!

Bi and pan have several similarities and I guess thats what made this thread interesting, but there are some differences too, which seemed to have been skirted over in the thread which I find a bit of a shame.

Personally I think it exists. Everything exists. Some guy out there right now is sexually attracted to their car and nothing else, why is it beyond the realms of possibility that some other guy is sexually attracted to personality and nothing else?

Completely agree with the para that I left, and thats why I dont care too much about the ‘alphabet soup’ that others have a problem with... millions of sexualities probably exist, we’ve probably only just got to the first stage of exploring them.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

I don’t think its my place to define you, go with whatever works for you.. There probably is a comfortable place in the middle of bi and pan, I don’t know if there is a word for this yet!

Yes, more labels is just whats needed I guess I am bipansexual. As is near every other 'mere' bisexual person, in reality.

Originally Posted by Withano

Bi and pan have several similarities and I guess thats what made this thread interesting, but there are some differences too, which seemed to have been skirted over in the thread which I find a bit of a shame.

I am not trying to skirt over any differences, I am literally not understanding the differences people are claiming that there is! It is really coming down to...bi people would **** anything that was pretty, where pan people would not and actually care about the personality too. Which is clearly bonkers. And plays into some offensive stereotypes too actually.

Originally Posted by Withano

Personally I think it exists. Everything exists. Some guy out there right now is sexually attracted to their car and nothing else, why is it beyond the realms of possibility that some other guy is sexually attracted to personality and nothing else?

But..is it a sexuality? The guy who is attracted to his car has not made up carsexuality. That I am aware of anyway

I don;t think anyone is disputing that some people find personality more important than anything else, or even the only thing that attracts them. But if it genuinely is personality and you would sleep with either sex, then you are bi. Not a totally different sexuality..surely...

It makes as much sense as claiming that the guy who only ever shags/fancies brunette women is a different sexuality to other heterosexual men. To me

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I am not trying to skirt over any differences, I am literally not understanding the differences people are claiming that there is! It is really coming down to...bi people would **** anything that was pretty, where pan people would not and actually care about the personality too. Which is clearly bonkers. And plays into some offensive stereotypes too actually.

Well, Id argue that anybody who says something like this is biphobic(?) (save me from the anti-pc brigade, theyre not gonna like my use of that word at all). That isnt what it means to be bi, and anybody that claims it is, is a daft tit.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Withano

Well, Id argue that anybody who says something like this is biphobic(?) (save me from the anti-pc brigade, theyre not gonna like my use of that word at all). That isnt what it means to be bi, and anybody that claims it is, is a daft tit.

LMAO.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Well, Id argue that anybody who says something like this is biphobic(?) (save me from the anti-pc brigade, theyre not gonna like my use of that word at all). That isnt what it means to be bi, and anybody that claims it is, is a daft tit.

But..thats how your posts are coming across to me? All of this, bi people its about raw sexual attraction, pan people its about the mind, and such. Like, I was paraphrasing your very own posts (and Adams actually)

And sorry for the huge edit just before I make a habit of that, when I really shouldn't

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

But..thats how your posts are coming across to me? All of this, bi people its about raw sexual attraction, pan people its about the mind, and such. Like, I was paraphrasing your very own posts (and Adams actually)

And sorry for the huge edit just before I make a habit of that, when I really shouldn't

I dont think ive said that at all. Bi people can be sexually attracted to people, pan people can not

Bi people can be sexually attracted to personality, pan people can too

There is a very key similarity, and a very key difference between the two sexualities.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

I dont think ive said that at all. Bi people can be sexually attracted to people, pan people can not

Bi people can be sexually attracted to personality, pan people can too

There is a very key similarity, and a very key difference between the two sexualities.

But a personality is not its own entity. So being attracted to a personality is still being attracted to a person? Again, my head hurts here

Am not trying to be funny or anything incase thats coming across that way. Just, I am not understanding this AT ALL and am actually finding many of the posts trying to explain the difference to be a bit offensive (though its noones right not to be offended..just pointing out that it IS actually coming across as quite biphobic to me..but meh) and very very rooted in stereotypes. Like, do you think gay people would be happy if someone came out with a new word that meant 'gay but cares about personality' and decided that homosexuality was actually about raw sexual attraction..and as a side effect, basically promiscuity. Those who stuck to 'gay' did not care about personality, some may care but its mainly about the 'sexual attraction' than forming actual bonds, and such? Of course they would not. But its fine to say this about bi people, because...? IDK. Apparently theres a reason.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

But a personality is not its own entity. So being attracted to a personality is still being attracted to a person? Again, my head hurts here

Am not trying to be funny or anything incase thats coming across that way. Just, I am not understanding this AT ALL and am actually finding many of the posts trying to explain the difference to be a bit offensive (though its noones right not to be offended..just pointing out that it IS actually coming across as quite biphobic to me..but meh) and very very rooted in stereotypes. Like, do you think gay people would be happy if someone came out with a new word that meant 'gay but cares about personality' and decided that homosexuality was actually about raw sexual attraction..and as a side effect, basically promiscuity. Those who stuck to 'gay' did not care about personality, some may care but its mainly about the 'sexual attraction' than forming actual bonds, and such? Of course they would not. But its fine to say this about bi people, because...? IDK. Apparently theres a reason.

Well if you are exclusively attracted to men, like a gay guy, then that would imply that youre not exclusively attracted to personality like a pan guy.

Being attracted to men and personality would make you gay in the same way that being attracted to men women and personality would make you bi.

There difference with pan is not being attracted to men, women, or anything in between.

I still think youre ignoring the differences vicky.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Withano

I dont think ive said that at all. Bi people can be sexually attracted to people, pan people can not

Bi people can be sexually attracted to personality, pan people can too

There is a very key similarity, and a very key difference between the two sexualities.

These pan people just sound like celibates to me.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

I dont think ive said that at all. Bi people can be sexually attracted to people, pan people can not

Bi people can be sexually attracted to personality, pan people can too

There is a very key similarity, and a very key difference between the two sexualities.

But it's not a different sexuality - it's just a bi person who isn't attracted to people if they aren't attracted to their personality?

This is what I mean about thinking you might be hugely oversimplifying the "spectrum" if you will of heterosexuality. HUGE numbers of heterosexual men and women (and homosexual too I would imagine) do NOT experience "raw physical sexual attraction" that isn't based primarily in personality. It is the primary aspect of all sexuality.

I'm beginning to wonder if the roots of "pansexual ideology" comes from a basic misunderstanding of what constitutes "normal" hetero, homo and bisexuality... People noticing that they are primarily attracted to personality and assuming that this makes them "totally different" from most people when it just... Doesn't? They've just misinterpreted or incorrectly assumed how it works for others? Perhaps having seen the, admittedly very VISIBLE, section of society that engages in casual sex and not realising that those people are actually a relatively small minority?

Which really then all just comes back to tribalism, once again. There seems to be a very real social desire for people to be part of a "special subset of people", above and beyond the pursuit of individuality even, that I really don't hugely understand. Being able to say "I am an X/Y/Z, this person here is just like me, these other people over here are NOTHING like me" has become such a core part of people's basic sense of self... I suppose there must be reasons for that.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But it's not a different sexuality - it's just a bi person who isn't attracted to people if they aren't attracted to their personality?

This is what I mean about thinking you might be hugely oversimplifying the "spectrum" if you will of heterosexuality. HUGE numbers of heterosexual men and women (and homosexual too I would imagine) do NOT experience "raw physical sexual attraction" that isn't based primarily in personality. It is the primary aspect of all sexuality.

I'm beginning to wonder if the roots of "pansexual ideology" comes from a basic misunderstanding of what constitutes "normal" hetero, homo and bisexuality... People noticing that they are primarily attracted to personality and assuming that this makes them "totally different" from most people when it just... Doesn't? They've just misinterpreted or incorrectly assumed how it works for others? Perhaps having seen the, admittedly very VISIBLE, section of society that engages in casual sex and not realising that those people are actually a relatively small minority?

Which really then all just comes back to tribalism, once again. There seems to be a very real social desire for people to be part of a "special subset of people", above and beyond the pursuit of individuality even, that I really don't hugely understand. Being able to say "I am an X/Y/Z, this person here is just like me, these other people over here are NOTHING like me" has become such a core part of people's basic sense of self... I suppose there must be reasons for that.

This is just me, and this is obviously anecdotal... but it just seems to me that the only folk who strive for these unique identifiers are white middle-class folk who aren't a super-minority, (female is not a minority, we are 50% of the general pop)... since group identifiers are trendy... pansexy can be like a group identifier... because gay/bi isn't that trendy anymore... and they're not trans... so pansexy is the next best thing short of pulling a Rachel Dolezal and transitioning to a black person.

I've maybe heard one pansexual person who is an actual minority. Most others are white folk who are trying to show how inclusive they are by adopting one of the new-fangled "qualifiers" from the LGBT dictionary.

The other logic behind this... if you can pull people away from "traditional"/well-accepted labels... more-over, encourage people to use fancier definitions or special syntax/acronyms or wording that comes from that movement... then they can essentially bake-in their more "out there" rhetoric into the English language... so easier to "soft-convert" people over to their ideology.

[Vicky.]

You very very rarely see anyone over a certain age labelling themselves with all of these things. I know that comes across as really ageist, and maybe it is but its something I have noticed a lot. Like, one youngster I know has so many labels when she gets going you would think shes bloody Daenerys Targaryen. And loads of youngsters I know have many labels..though not quite to that extent.