[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.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Maru

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.

The whole thing is downright manipulative and deceitful in my opinion and just what I believe we have come to expect from PC.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The whole thing is downright manipulative and deceitful in my opinion and just what I believe we have come to expect from PC.

PC - Potty & Crackers. Pretentious Crap. Puzzling Crud.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The whole thing is downright manipulative and deceitful in my opinion and just what I believe we have come to expect from PC.

Strong words from one of the most PC members on here.

[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.

[bots]

Originally Posted by 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.

Says Vicky, warden of TiBB