[Maru]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I don't get that either - I'd say "attraction" is an umbrella term, with "sexual attraction" and "personality attraction" both beneath it. I don't think a preference for one of these attractions affects what someone's sexuality is.


I once saw a youtube conversation between Blaire White and Theryn Meyer - both are male transwomen. Their conversation included how their attractions changed while they were on hormones, and they both said they value personalities more since they transitioned, and that they both can still get boners "as long as the candles are all lit."

What does that even mean?... I love Blaire.

Edit: Oh, kind of like "checks all my boxes"...

[Withano]

I dont know where I stand on the ‘there should be 4 sexualities! Vs there should be 4000000 sexualities’. I think they’re both true. It is a huge spectrum of everything to ever exist really. But, if we can divide that into 4, thatll save some time.

Umbrella terms are useful, but not incredibly descriptive.

It shouldnt matter too much either way, but if somebody wants to identify as literally anything, then why would we take their comfort away from them?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

It shouldnt matter too much either way, but if somebody wants to identify as literally anything, then why would we take their comfort away from them?

I agree with that in principle but only in the sense that people can personally identify as whatever they want to identify and perhaps at most have an expectation that their nearest and dearest will take the time to understand the intricacies of that.

The problems are not with how someone wants to live their personal life, though, the problem lies in there being an expectation that everyone else / the whole world en masse must both a) accept the existence of and definition of every descriptor, and keep up to date with every new descriptor as it comes into usage, even if it is not an area that has any bearing at all on their day to day life and also b) accurately remember the personally chosen identities of every single person they ever encounter, with a failure to do so being "offensive".

Or in other words... Yes, it's fine for any individual to live how that individual wants to, so long as they remember that other people are not just actors on their own personal stage and beyond not being deliberately aggressive or offensive, they must manage and limit their expectations of people.

Expecting a layperson to understand and be supportive of pansexuality when a brief bit of googling demonstrates that there isn't even concensus amongst pansexuals on what pansexuality actually is... For example. I mean, you're pretty adamant about your definition of it Withano, but googling immediately brings up several aspects of your description under the heading "myths about pansexuality!", in articles written by self identified pansexuals, so...

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree with that in principle but only in the sense that people can personally identify as whatever they want to identify and perhaps at most have an expectation that their nearest and dearest will take the time to understand the intricacies of that.

The problems are not with how someone wants to live their personal life, though, the problem lies in there being an expectation that everyone else / the whole world en masse must both a) accept the existence of and definition of every descriptor, and keep up to date with every new descriptor as it comes into usage, even if it is not an area that has any bearing at all on their day to day life and also b) accurately remember the personally chosen identities of every single person they ever encounter, with a failure to do so being "offensive".

Or in other words... Yes, it's fine for any individual to live how that individual wants to, so long as they remember that other people are not just actors on their own personal stage and beyond not being deliberately aggressive or offensive, they must manage and limit their expectations of people.

Expecting a layperson to understand and be supportive of pansexuality when a brief bit of googling demonstrates that there isn't even concensus amongst pansexuals on what pansexuality actually is... For example. I mean, you're pretty adamant about your definition of it Withano, but googling immediately brings up several aspects of your description under the heading "myths about pansexuality!", in articles written by self identified pansexuals, so...

that's it in a nutshell. The other thing is with the generation of each new label, it reinforces the PC gone mad narrative.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

that's it in a nutshell. The other thing is with the generation of each new label, it reinforces the PC gone mad narrative.

ABSOLUTELY it does.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

ABSOLUTELY it does.

Seconded! At this Rate PC is going to go down as the biggest joke in history and all those that bought into it!

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

that's it in a nutshell. The other thing is with the generation of each new label, it reinforces the PC gone mad narrative.

It literally pushes people over the edge . I consider myself fairly supportive of self-IS and of people just being whatever they want to be. It's no one's business and (despite hysterical claims to the contrary) it really is very unlikely to do anyone any harm... but the endless jargon .

It's like,

*NEW TERM*
"OK, that makes sense."

*NEW TERM*
"Yeah that clears thing up a bit more"

*NEW TERM*
"Sure, OK"

*NEW TERM"
"...fine..."

*NEW TERM"
"Alright, come on everyone..."

*NEW TERM*
"Another??"

*NEW TERM*
"But now I've forgotten the last two!"

*NEEEW TERM!!"
"OK enough! Just stop it!"

*NEW TERM NEW TERM NEW TERM*

Youtube video

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It literally pushes people over the edge . I consider myself fairly supportive of self-IS and of people just being whatever they want to be. It's no one's business and (despite hysterical claims to the contrary) it really is very unlikely to do anyone any harm... but the endless jargon .

It's like,

*NEW TERM*
"OK, that makes sense."

*NEW TERM*
"Yeah that clears thing up a bit more"

*NEW TERM*
"Sure, OK"

*NEW TERM"
"...fine..."

*NEW TERM"
"Alright, come on everyone..."

*NEW TERM*
"Another??"

*NEW TERM*
"But now I've forgotten the last two!"

*NEEEW TERM!!"
"OK enough! Just stop it!"

*NEW TERM NEW TERM NEW TERM*

Youtube video

That's my favourite scene in the movie, me and Gav still do this sometimes

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree with that in principle but only in the sense that people can personally identify as whatever they want to identify and perhaps at most have an expectation that their nearest and dearest will take the time to understand the intricacies of that.

The problems are not with how someone wants to live their personal life, though, the problem lies in there being an expectation that everyone else / the whole world en masse must both a) accept the existence of and definition of every descriptor, and keep up to date with every new descriptor as it comes into usage, even if it is not an area that has any bearing at all on their day to day life and also b) accurately remember the personally chosen identities of every single person they ever encounter, with a failure to do so being "offensive".

Or in other words... Yes, it's fine for any individual to live how that individual wants to, so long as they remember that other people are not just actors on their own personal stage and beyond not being deliberately aggressive or offensive, they must manage and limit their expectations of people.

Expecting a layperson to understand and be supportive of pansexuality when a brief bit of googling demonstrates that there isn't even concensus amongst pansexuals on what pansexuality actually is... For example. I mean, you're pretty adamant about your definition of it Withano, but googling immediately brings up several aspects of your description under the heading "myths about pansexuality!", in articles written by self identified pansexuals, so...

Great post

[Vicky.]

One of the letters stands for allies. So yes, straight people are now included in the LGBT alphabet soup.

Even asexual I don't understand tbh, as noone is ever going to be discriminated against for not feeling sexual attraction. Any more than 'allies' are going to suffer discrimination for being..allies

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

One of the letters stands for allies. So yes, straight people are now included in the LGBT alphabet soup.

Even asexual I don't understand tbh, as noone is ever going to be discriminated against for not feeling sexual attraction. Any more than 'allies' are going to suffer discrimination for being..allies

Yeah now I remember that's it Allies omg
And yeah Asexual isn't interested in anything, even intersex is on the alphabet list when people are born with 2 body private parts

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

One of the letters stands for allies. So yes, straight people are now included in the LGBT alphabet soup.

Even asexual I don't understand tbh, as noone is ever going to be discriminated against for not feeling sexual attraction. Any more than 'allies' are going to suffer discrimination for being..allies

I think people would use ‘LGBT’ more regularly when they’re discussing discriminatory issues, anduse LGBTQQIAAP when they’re discussing the community and inclusivity.

LGBT is still a phrase that gets used. The rest of the letters are usually used for different reasons.

[Vicky.]

There are varying degrees of intersex, I can see how people could be discriminated against for that. However, LGB was about sexuality, not every single person who can face discrimination. Adding more and more letters, to me, waters down the cause. But stonewall added T because they had done pretty much all campaigning they can do for LGB people after achieving equal marriage, then they widened 'T' to include crossdressers and such, rather than just transsexual people. Since adding T, they have shat all over LGB (especially L) people too. Tis a sorry state of affairs.

[Tom4784]

The full LGBT does annoy to no end because most of it is so pointless. A lot of the letters are redundant and having 'Ally' be apart of it is just pandering to straight people to include them in something that ultimately isn't about them.

I support civil rights movements and groups regarding race but, as a white person, for example I can't be apart of Black Live Matter as much as a black person can because while I can do what I can to support the cause, I'm not a victim of that particular type of prejudice. I can call for change, I can support movements but to demand recognition for it wouldn't be right.

Allies are valuable but I don't really agree with putting an A in the LGBT name just for them.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The full LGBT does annoy to no end because most of it is so pointless. A lot of the letters are redundant and having 'Ally' be apart of it is just pandering to straight people to include them in something that ultimately isn't about them.

I support civil rights movements and groups regarding race but, as a white person, for example I can't be apart of Black Live Matter as much as a black person can because while I can do what I can to support the cause, I'm not a victim of that particular type of prejudice. I can call for change, I can support movements but to demand recognition for it wouldn't be right.

Allies are valuable but I don't really agree with putting an A in the LGBT name just for them.

i think extending lgbt dilutes the cause. If it is extended to include all sorts, then the more inclusive it becomes, the less people will believe they have valid issues. How could a group that all encompassing possibly need support

In my opinion LGBT was making good ground and with all the additions its become a laughing stock

[Denver]

So people saying Bisexuals go for personality over looks

When you go out and have a one night stand do you spend weeks getting to know thoer personality first?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

So people saying Bisexuals go for personality over looks

When you go out and have a one night stand do you spend weeks getting to know thoer personality first?

Are you saying pansexual people never ever have one night stands?

I can do one night stands, or I used to. However, when actually looking for a relationship, of course I value personality more. I can be physically attracted to someone enough to shag them, but beyond one night, I want more than looking pretty tbh. And a bad personality can turn me off someone quickly. Same as a few times, someone I have found not attractive at all when meeting them, I have grown to fancy like mad after getting to know them. I think this is surely true of most people?!

So basically, pansexuals never ever have a sexual relationship until they know all aspects of a persons personality?

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Are you saying pansexual people never ever have one night stands?

I can do one night stands, or I used to. However, when actually looking for a relationship, of course I value personality more. I can be physically attracted to someone enough to shag them, but beyond one night, I want more than looking pretty tbh. And a bad personality can turn me off someone quickly. Same as a few times, someone I have found not attractive at all when meeting them, I have grown to fancy like mad after getting to know them. I think this is surely true of most people?!

So basically, pansexuals never ever have a sexual relationship until they know all aspects of a persons personality?

I would never sleep with someone I didn't know.

And as yes pansexual do have sex but only with people they get to know and learn about not some random in the street

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Adam.

I would never sleep with someone I didn't know.

But can we ever truly know anyone, Adam

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Adam.

I would never sleep with someone I didn't know.

And as yes pansexual do have sex but only with people they get to know and learn about not some random in the street

And thats the same for most people of any orientation.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

And thats the same for most people of any orientation.

No because I would shag the 1st person to buy me a drink in the club

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

I would never sleep with someone I didn't know.

And as yes pansexual do have sex but only with people they get to know and learn about not some random in the street

But withano just said

Pansexuals do not experience physical sexual attraction, so would be unlikely to have a one night stand.

(based on sexual attraction anyway, im sure it still happens out of loneliness, intimacy, boredom, drunkeness etc).

Unlikely.

Well..most heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual people would be 'unlikely' to have a one night stand, and even more unlikely if you took alcohol, loneliness, intimacy, boredom and such out of the equation.

This thread is making my head hurt. I still see no difference between bisexual and pansexual except for people trying to make out that bisexual people are just wanton sluts*. Or transphobic (not on here, in general..this is the main thing that is thrown at those who dare to define themselves as bi instead of pan)

*I think theres nothing wrong with multiple sexual partners, but this is the best way of saying this tbh

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

But withano just said



Unlikely.

Well..most heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual people would be 'unlikely' to have a one night stand, and even more unlikely if you took alcohol, loneliness, intimacy, boredom and such out of the equation.

This thread is making my head hurt. I still see no difference between bisexual and pansexual except for people trying to make out that bisexual people are just wanton sluts*. Or transphobic (not on here, in general..this is the main thing that is thrown at those who dare to define themselves as bi instead of pan)

*I think theres nothing wrong with multiple sexual partners, but this is the best way of saying this tbh

The main difference is physical, raw sexual attraction to the male or female entity

And sexual attraction to the personality that may be within any entity

They can both be true for bi people, only one is true for pan people.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Adam.

So people saying Bisexuals go for personality over looks

When you go out and have a one night stand do you spend weeks getting to know thoer personality first?

This is why I think pansexuals are just bisexuals who don't want the label. You are basically slutshaming bi people to make pansexuality sound more legitimate.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

This is why I think pansexuals are just bisexuals who don't want the label. You are basically slutshaming bi people to make pansexuality sound more legitimate.

I disagree, hetero and homosexuals have one night stands too, they do it because they can be sexually attracted to men or women or both in a physical way. Pansexuals do not experience physical sexual attraction, so would be unlikely to have a one night stand.

(based on sexual attraction anyway, im sure it still happens out of loneliness, intimacy, boredom, drunkeness etc).