[bitontheslide]

Would you like to have 2 or 3 grains of salt on your dinner madam is about all it means to me.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

I think this is potentially because there is an idea that female sexuality is generally more fluid so people "believe in" female bisexuals, whereas they think male bisexuality is a myth and therefore any male claiming to be bisexual is a half-in-the-closet gay man.

I personally don't think those huge differences between male and female sexuality actually exist, though, as the fluidity of female sexuality is much less than it seems; there are many females who will engage in heavy flirting / petting and even sexual activity with other females but purely "for fun" and would not have any meaningful relationship beyond that with another female, and IMO those individuals are still effectively heterosexual. Whereas heterosexual males would be far less likely to do so, probably for mainly social-psych reasons (it was MUCH more common in earlier civilisations, for example).

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

I'm kind of reaching the conclusion that what "pansexual" basically is, is a dating indicator or "flag". It's a quick and simple way for someone on the dating scene to tell others that they are bisexuals who are open to relationships with transsexuals and those who consider themselves to be "neither". In that useage, its totally fine, maybe it even IS required because its a bit distasteful, I suppose, to have to add "trans is fine" to your profile?

However it seems like it's utility ends there and therefore, it's basically jargon; only relevant to certain people, and only at a certain time in their lives. Which is totally fine... However... Expecting everyone else in society to "keep up with" the latest terms and their meanings, and use them accurately (when it seems like there isn't even a full concensus on the right usage) is an unreasonable request and a pointless one... Because its completely irrelevant information to anyone else, as it should be.

Like... Of the friends I've kept since school, quite a close group of three of us, two of us are straight and married and one is gay, and will soon be married. But I don't even think of it in those terms? At this point we're just three people with life partners . I don't meet up with them and think "AHA! Here he is, my good homosexual friend!"

[LeatherTrumpet]

Just anyone talking about what their sexual proclivities are is vile

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Just anyone talking about what their sexual proclivities are is vile

Only if you're sexually repressed LT. Come on. Open up. G... Give it up LT. Tell us. Tell us your wildest fantasies. Go on. You know you want to.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Only if you're sexually repressed LT. Come on. Open up. G... Give it up LT. Tell us. Tell us your wildest fantasies. Go on. You know you want to.

2 weather girls, MO trained, big cold fronts, updraughts, huge hailstones..

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

2 weather girls, MO trained, big cold fronts, updraughts, huge hailstones..

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think this is potentially because there is an idea that female sexuality is generally more fluid so people "believe in" female bisexuals, whereas they think male bisexuality is a myth and therefore any male claiming to be bisexual is a half-in-the-closet gay man.

I personally don't think those huge differences between male and female sexuality actually exist, though, as the fluidity of female sexuality is much less than it seems; there are many females who will engage in heavy flirting / petting and even sexual activity with other females but purely "for fun" and would not have any meaningful relationship beyond that with another female, and IMO those individuals are still effectively heterosexual. Whereas heterosexual males would be far less likely to do so, probably for mainly social-psych reasons.




I'm kind of reaching the conclusion that what "pansexual" basically is, is a dating indicator or "flag". It's a quick and simple way for someone on the dating scene to tell others that they are bisexuals who are open to relationships with transsexuals and those who consider themselves to be "neither". In that useage, its totally fine, maybe it even IS required because its a bit distasteful, I suppose, to have to add "trans is fine" to your profile?

However it seems like it's utility ends there and therefore, it's basically jargon; only relevant to certain people, and only at a certain time in their lives. Which is totally fine... However... Expecting everyone else in society to "keep up with" the latest terms and their meanings, and use them accurately (when it seems like there isn't even a full concensus on the right usage) is an unreasonable request and a pointless one... Because its completely irrelevant information to anyone else, as it should be.

Like... Of the friends I've kept since school, quite a close group of three of us, two of us are straight and married and one is gay, and will soon be married. But I don't even think of it in those terms? At this point we're just three people with life partners . I don't meet up with them and think "AHA! Here he is, my good homosexual friend!"

Another great post, T.S - you really do have an insight into this type of stuff and even I can follow what you are saying.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

2 weather girls, MO trained, big cold fronts, updraughts, huge hailstones..

weather girls treading on your leathery trumpet and ballsack with their high heels?

filth

[Vicky.]

Just been looking over threads from last time I was on. No, I do not think pansexuality is a thing tbh. I think todays youth just want even more and more labels. 68 different sexualities. 67846 different genders. A special word for people with their hair dyed blue, a label for how quickly one does their homework and so on. And its getting a bit silly. Pansexuality is bisexuality. Yet many many pansexuals sneer at bisexuals...why?! They are literally the same thing. You are both attracted to both sexes

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Just been looking over threads from last time I was on. No, I do not think pansexuality is a thing tbh. I think todays youth just want even more and more labels. 68 different sexualities. 67846 different genders. A special word for people with their hair dyed blue, a label for how quickly one does their homework and so on. And its getting a bit silly. Pansexuality is bisexuality. Yet many many pansexuals sneer at bisexuals...why?! They are literally the same thing. You are both attracted to both sexes

but if you like their personality INSTEAD of their gender, that makes it unique and special!!!!111one!!

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Shaun

See I've heard this line of removing the sex from the whole equation before but that still doesn't make much sense to me. Ultimately you are playing with someone's genitals, whatever their gender is, so just resting and saying "I fall in love with a person, not a sex " is just incredibly condescending to anyone who identifies as anything other than pansexual. Also implies all homosexual males only like cis men, all heterosexual females only like cis men, etc. etc.

Well, quite.

Doesn't everyone fall in love with the person, not the genitals anyway?! I mean I have 3 friends who always considered themselves 100% straight (and in one case, 100% gay...to the point where he thought anything to do with vagina was totally vile, a sentiment seemingly shared by many on this forum ), but then fell in love with someone and basically..'got over' the fact that this person was the 'wrong' sex for the sexuality they thought they were. In one of those cases it was not so much 'got over' it, but that it didn't matter as they were in love. I cannot speak on this with any authority given I have always been bi myself mind, I can only go off what others say. But I have never really thought 'omg, he has a dick, I want it' rather than like...it being the person I was attracted to.

I guess I could maybe be described as pansexual too, if I was that pretentious. As honestly, if I was very attracted to someone I thought was a guy and it turned out they were female..it probably wouldn't bother me all that much, same as if they looked like a woman and had a dick. Which is my understanding of what pansexual is. So yes, by very definition, those describing themselves as pansexual are implying that 'mere bisexuals' are transphobic, as not all bisexual people would be happy being with someone who looked like a bloke who had a fanny, or looked like a woman and had a dick (see also cotton ceiling...which is now slowly moving onto gay men from my understanding, and its now transphobic for gay men to be..well attracted to male people. Rather than only for lesbians to be attracted to females)

Bisexual people are attracted to both sexes. Some would be fine with a mix up of both sexes. Some will not. What appears to be happening, and has been happening for some time now, is that those bisexual people who are attracted to a mismatch of sexual characteristics (including 'gender identity'..as noone can be attracted to gender identity alone as its something in the mind) are making out that there is something wrong with not being attracted to a mismatch of characteristics. Or that bisexual people who would not, for example, have sex with a butch woman, but they would with a more feminine woman...are in the wrong in some way. Or that bisexual people who would sleep with male and female people, but not someone who was female but had been taking testosterone..is transphobic.

Its just a need for more labels when really, we should be having less. And in many cases the need to be the white knight, protecting people against all those nasty people who do not want to sleep with them. Really..

I know a fair few youngsters who define themselves as 'pansexual' but have never had a relationship with anyone of the same sex, let alone the same sex but 'different'..but who will still berate lesbians for being lesbians and will sneer at bisexual people for not defining themselves as pan as apparently bi is transphobic.

This went on way longer that I meant it too, and I may add another couple of essays to this thread tbh as I posted before actually reading the thread

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

but if you like their personality INSTEAD of their gender, that makes it unique and special!!!!111one!!

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Doesn't everyone fall in love with the person, not the genitals anyway?! I mean I have 3 friends who always considered themselves 100% straight (and in one case, 100% gay...to the point where he thought anything to do with vagina was totally vile, a sentiment seemingly shared by many on this forum ), but then fell in love with someone and basically..'got over' the fact that this person was the 'wrong' sex for the sexuality they thought they were. In one of those cases it was not so much 'got over' it, but that it didn't matter as they were in love. I cannot speak on this with any authority given I have always been bi myself mind, I can only go off what others say. But I have never really thought 'omg, he has a dick, I want it' rather than like...it being the person I was attracted to.

Heh Was writing this and did not see your reply

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

No, it means you don't find anyone attractive at all, until you build a very strong friendship and emotional connection. You are basically asexual outside of that. So it counts as a branch of asexuality.

I thought the label for that was 'aromantic'

Seems some labels just mean the same thing? Like pan and bi I guess.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Just been looking over threads from last time I was on. No, I do not think pansexuality is a thing tbh. I think todays youth just want even more and more labels. 68 different sexualities. 67846 different genders. A special word for people with their hair dyed blue, a label for how quickly one does their homework and so on. And its getting a bit silly. Pansexuality is bisexuality. Yet many many pansexuals sneer at bisexuals...why?! They are literally the same thing. You are both attracted to both sexes

It’s all total nonsence - would be nice to fast forward the clock by about 20/30 years and see how many will cringe looking back!
.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just think it's a huge oversimplification of heterosexual sexuality to say that it's about "liking specific genitals".

I can aesthetically appreciate the female form. I can aesthetically appreciate the male form. I (thus far I suppose??) have never been interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with a male. And my attraction to females isn't 100% reliant on stereotypical "attractive norms". Is anyone's? If someone is attracted to one brunette with a certain body type, does that mean they will DEFINITELY be attracted to a different brunette with that body type, if she has a different personality and carries herself differently?

For example, there's a reason that that old phrase "Oh you'll like him / her, they're JUST your type!" rarely works. The person who is supposed to like this other person who is their "type" nine times out of ten will be like "Meh... Nah."... Because attraction is subtle and nuanced.

Also the reason that you can be highly attracted to, say, a TV or movie character... But be left completely cold when you see the actor in an interview, if the actor is nothing like the role they're playing.

This is normal sexuality. I get the feeling that those arguing for "pansexuality" don't get that attraction to personality is a HUGE (the biggest) component in all sexualities?

Amazing post tbh, but especially the bolded parts.

I never really thought about this before, but yeah, the TV character thing is spot on. I fancy some actors so much in some stuff, and then in other stuff just..no, or yeah in TV interviews and that too. I never really thought about it too much but of course its because of the character, rather than the looks.

A great example of this I think for me is, and this will show how my type is 'generally' geeky, but not 'geeky' as in appearance especially..is criminal minds. Not sure how many people on here watch it mind..but yeah. There is a character on it called Spencer Reid. I thought he was fairly gross tbh when I started watching it. But after maybe half a series, I fancied him like mad, and still do...and have just recently found out that hes actually a model too..so quite how I ever thought he was gross on first impressions is beyond me, but I did Was the same with Dexter Morgan, not attracted to him at all, then fancied him like mad from a few episodes in...right up til the end. However, watching the actor in other stuff, or in interviews is just such a nono...its Dexter Morgan that I fancy, not Michael C Hall.

This happens near every year on BB too. I can really fancy people on first appearances (which is probably how I had so many one night stands when younger tbh, with people I had just met) but once I know their personality too..everything changes. the best example of this I think was Dale in BB9. He was stunning. But after a couple of weeks? I found him grotesque tbh. Going the opposite way..Freddie in BB10. Thought he was not attractive at all, but come halfway through the series, I fancied him like mad. And then started going off him in that way once he started getting really arrogant (something I tend to hate in people) and now, cannot see what the hell I ever saw in him, though still appreciate him as a housemate.

I am bisexual, I think females and female bodies are much much better to look at than male ones, however I prefer actually having sex with male people..as there are so many other differences than just ****ing genitals. I do, however, prefer kissing female people. Maybe I have just had good luck with the females I have kissed, but women kiss so much better than men do tbh

So yeah, of course its all so much more complicated than some would have us believe. Some people are shallow enough to be only interested in aesthetics...but the vast6 vast majority I would wager, care about so much more than just looks...or genitals. Genitals are odd looking things anyway, I think. I cannot imagine being attracted to a walking vagina, and I would just piss myself laughing at a walking cock and balls.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

If we had to only have four adjectives, I would agree. A sexual attraction to a man is very different to an attraction to a man otherwise asexuality wouldnt be a thing either (they date too and can also be attracted to men)

Originally Posted by Withano

Well again Id ask if you think theres a difference between sexual attraction and attraction but you avoided that question like ten minutes ago. Yes or no, is it the same thing?

Originally Posted by Withano

An male asexual dates a man, then a woman. Is he bi? He, like a pan-guy wasnt sexually attracted to their gender.

These posts together...maybe made this 'click'

So basically, pansexuality is being attracted to both sexes, but not being sexually attracted to them. So basically, pansexuals are bi asexuals, for want of a better term?!

Thats the only way this is making any sense to me tbh.

Bisexuals are 'sexually attracted' to either sex.
Pansexuals are 'attracted' to either sex

If this is not what you mean, then I have no idea why you keep bringing up the difference between attraction and sexual attraction.
If this is what you mean, then surely 'pansexual' is the same as 'asexual'?! As no sexual attraction is felt?

[Vicky.]

And now I will not reply anymore, as I seem to be spamming a bit. But this thread is a pretty decent topic tbh. Wish I had actually been around for it :S

[Maru]

@Vicky I was sold on my husband's personality before I was ever sold on his looks, not that his looks were bad. We just had a very strong mental connection very early on. He looks better the older he gets too, so a big plus. I think personality-based attraction is a precursor for me... especially when it comes to opening up... not that I have any sort of conditions that are trust-based, but that I am a private person person-to-person and I don't feel like just anyone can walk through that gate and gain admission... so it means something to me to give them that side of myself ...

Anyway, I think women's emotions tend to heavily play out who they are attracted to... so I think it's kind of ironic there is this pansexuality thing that is supposed to be based entirely on personality. We are different in how we are attracted to someone, there has to be more emotional processes there flowing... sometimes that is quick, sometimes not... men on the other hand, can be turned on simply by how someone walks or carries themselves, their specific physical assets, etc... not saying that doesn't happen with women either, but there has to be an emotional component I think for that to even be the case. I.e. they associate that movement with some other romantic drama in their head, etc... us women have a lot of fun fun pictures in our head, whereas men just love "eye candy"...

While I think vaginas are prettier (aesthetically more pleasing) than peni... most of the time... I also think that peni are more attractive and more interesting, because 1) they has a very fun shape, 2) masculinity and 3) the more "aggressive" aspects of their genitalia versus our own other more abstract reasons... women do tend to look better.. but again, men are more interesting and keep my attention. It's that thrill of the contrasts between both sexes as you say...

I'm not bisexual Vicky, but I think women would be a lot better at sex with other women more times than not. Just because they already know what we like. I have known from talking to other women about what we like, watching porn, etc ... It's funny how we're both like "No, that doesn't work at all... silly men"... Because we know there is emotional complexity there too and we are equipped, biologically I believe, to deal with those complexities...

I think arousal works differently for men, isn't a flip a switch as it feels like it is with men sometimes... I think that can be a curse for women at times... especially when the chemistry is not as strong, after a day of dealing with the kids and other shenanigans... men are not as intuitive in that area and kind of have to learn on their own how those elements of emotional foreplay play into what interests versus what actually arouses us... because sometimes those things are different... and a man who is like that by default and skillful with it, that's quite a rarity... but then the flip side of this that "talent" can also be skillfully abused, since they know how to key into our inner "romantic narratives" so to speak to get the attention they want... and they can dettach emotionally very quickly... whereas with women, not so to easy shut off... ... (though men can be like this as well to a degree... and I imagine that is probably a curse). So while men have a peni that thinks for itself, being blue-balled sucks, etc... we have an emotional filter that never goes away and it's harder for us to make those feelings start once they've started... so in that way, we are emotionally blue-balled.

Anyway, because of these complexities... I don't think pansexuality is a t hing... also, there are like 50 different descriptors on the web, as I previously posted... so even if I bought that designation being important, someone else has their own definition... and I think that's a little bit too "convenient" for a designator...

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

And now I will not reply anymore, as I seem to be spamming a bit. But this thread is a pretty decent topic tbh. Wish I had actually been around for it :S

As long as you are in SD and it's a brain dump, it's OK Anyway, as I said in my quote in ML, just glad you are posting more outside of playing TiBB daycare attendant...

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

If this is not what you mean, then I have no idea why you keep bringing up the difference between attraction and sexual attraction.

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.

Originally Posted by Maru

Anyway, I think women's emotions tend to heavily play out who they are attracted to... so I think it's kind of ironic there is this pansexuality thing that is supposed to be based entirely on personality. We are different in how we are attracted to someone, there has to be more emotional processes there flowing... sometimes that is quick, sometimes not... men on the other hand, can be turned on simply by how someone walks or carries themselves, their specific physical assets, etc... not saying that doesn't happen with women either, but there has to be an emotional component I think for that to even be the case. I.e. they associate that movement with some other romantic drama in their head, etc... us women have a lot of fun fun pictures in our head, whereas men just love "eye candy"...

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."

[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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

These posts together...maybe made this 'click'

So basically, pansexuality is being attracted to both sexes, but not being sexually attracted to them. So basically, pansexuals are bi asexuals, for want of a better term?!

Thats the only way this is making any sense to me tbh.

Bisexuals are 'sexually attracted' to either sex.
Pansexuals are 'attracted' to either sex

If this is not what you mean, then I have no idea why you keep bringing up the difference between attraction and sexual attraction.
If this is what you mean, then surely 'pansexual' is the same as 'asexual'?! As no sexual attraction is felt?

Not really the line I was on

Asexuals - zero sexual attraction at all times, but can feel attraction, so will date those they become attracted to

Pansexuals - can feel attraction, which can develop into sexual attraction, but only ever in that order

Bisexuals (and heterosexuals and homosexuals) - can feel sexual attraction before any other form of attraction, that doesnt mean they are incapable of other types of attraction, and doesnt mean they act on their sexual attraction before other forms of attraction even if it does come first. But sexual attraction to people for the way they look is somethig that pans wont experience ever.

Im trying to remember my summary a while back cos i cba to multiquote

Sexual attraction to gender A=no, P=no, B=yes
Sexual attraction to personality A=no, P=yes, B=yes
Attraction to people A=yes*, P=yes, B=yes

*there are some aromantic asexuals, but for the purposes of trying to make this clearer...!

[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?

[Toy Soldier]

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...

[bitontheslide]

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.