Guest member25959 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Ive come across this one a few times, as far as i can tell, pansexuality is a description for someone who is sexually attracted to anyone, regardless of their gender, is this right, or is there more to it? Also, what is it that actually makes it different from bisexuality? Link to post Share on other sites
Aimeendfire Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 bisexuality just means boys and girls. pansexuality would mean boys, girls, trans, ect. Link to post Share on other sites
Astryda Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 It's just as Fish said, bi- sexual person is attracted to both males and females, while pansexual person may be attracted to anyone, regardless of people's gender (male, female, genderless, androgynous, etcetera) or sex (male, female). If you want to read more, here's an article on pansexuality (which also compares bi- sexuality and pansexuality) on Wikipedia: Pansexuality. There's also term 'Pan- romantic' used to describe asexual person attracted to others regardless of their sex or gender. Link to post Share on other sites
KayleeSaeihr Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I'm pan-romantic :) Link to post Share on other sites
Hallucigenia Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I'd like to point out (as the Wikipedia article rightly does) that plenty of people who identify as "bisexual" are technically pansexual as relates to their potential attraction to people who do not smoothly fit into the gender binary. In fact, depending on your definition of the gender binary, plenty of people who identify as hetero and homosexuals could be classified as open to relationships who don't completely fit. Transgender people, for instance, might easily have open-minded partners who identify as monosexual. The distinction between being attracted to multiple genders (which we'll call "bisexual" for the moment, although there's also "polysexual") and being attracted regardless of gender ("pansexual") is not nearly so clear to me as it should be, largely because people disagree on the meaning of the word "gender". We've agreed in other threads that gender simply boils down to whether one identifies themselves as a man, woman, or something else. But when people call themselves hetero-, homo-, bi-, pan-, or anything-sexual, are they merely saying "I'm attracted to people who call themselves such-and-such"? It seems to me that, when sexuality comes into play, other factors such as the structure of people's bodies and the social roles that they play necessarily become involved. I'm not saying every person is attracted to the gendered parts of these issues specifically, but if you're having sex with someone (which involves their body) or spending excessive social/romantic time with them (which involves the way they socialize and are socialized) then those things are going to inform the way you percieve that person, which affects your attraction to them. A person might be attracted to bodily and social traits that aren't associated with either gender. But what happens when such traits include things like aggressiveness or nurturing behavior, which much of our populace still associates with one side of the binary and not the other? In other words, where do we draw the line between things that are "gendered" (and therefore a pansexual isn't allowed to have a reaction to them either way) and things that are "not gendered"? Link to post Share on other sites
AVENCakes Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Pansexual acknowledges non-binary gender and sex, that's the only one I really know of. Link to post Share on other sites
metalgirl2045 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Pansexual and bisexual can usually be used interchangably, I doubt there are many self-identifying bisexual people who would actually object to a trans or intersex partner on the basis of not fitting the gender binary (they could be transphobic, but it's possible and possibly quite common to be homo/bi/pan sexual and be homophobic). The one common case I can think of where the difference would matter would be a bisexual person who prefers one sex or gender over the other, a pansexual should not see it as relevant. Link to post Share on other sites
pawprint prettysure Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I used to consider myself first gay, then bisexual but neither of those really fit. I fall for the personality, I don't care which gender, if any, the other person is. Pan-romantic feels good, not too tight fit :P Link to post Share on other sites
Næt. Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Ohhhh...look at that shine...and the curves...oh that chrome is hot...I bet it wears teflon I'd cook with that. *ahem* Sexuality is mega-confusing. If pan- is all, doesn't that mean that bi- is just two? :S Link to post Share on other sites
Marvin Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The one common case I can think of where the difference would matter would be a bisexual person who prefers one sex or gender over the other, a pansexual should not see it as relevant. What do you mean by 'prefers' though? This is what I don't quite understand with these labels. As far as I can tell, 'pan' is merely a generalisation of 'bi' to non-binary gender, so if the one (bi) is allowed a slight preference, why shouldn't the other (pan) be? All that the labels are stating is that the gender of a prospective partner wouldn't preclude a possible relationship with them, a slight preference for one gender or another doesn't really come into that does it? Link to post Share on other sites
Shinnok Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I'm somewhat pan-asexual but there's certain genders I'm not attracted to Link to post Share on other sites
Hallucigenia Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The one common case I can think of where the difference would matter would be a bisexual person who prefers one sex or gender over the other, a pansexual should not see it as relevant. What do you mean by 'prefers' though? This is what I don't quite understand with these labels. As far as I can tell, 'pan' is merely a generalisation of 'bi' to non-binary gender, so if the one (bi) is allowed a slight preference, why shouldn't the other (pan) be? All that the labels are stating is that the gender of a prospective partner wouldn't preclude a possible relationship with them, a slight preference for one gender or another doesn't really come into that does it? Yeah, a lot of bisexuals have gender preferences. A lot of pansexuals like to say that they are attracted to the person, not the gender, and gender doesn't come into it at all, which inspired my previous confused post. But a lot of bisexuals like to say that too. So... I dunno. How do you tell if you have a gender preference in the first place? I mean, it's relatively obvious for monosexuals, but if you're bi/pan do you have to go through the list of all the people you've ever been attracted to and calculate exactly how many are each gender and how strong each attraction was and do a T-test versus some chance level of attraction calculated based on the proportion of people of each gender you encounter in the first place? It still just baffles me. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Puck Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The one common case I can think of where the difference would matter would be a bisexual person who prefers one sex or gender over the other, a pansexual should not see it as relevant. What do you mean by 'prefers' though? This is what I don't quite understand with these labels. As far as I can tell, 'pan' is merely a generalisation of 'bi' to non-binary gender, so if the one (bi) is allowed a slight preference, why shouldn't the other (pan) be? All that the labels are stating is that the gender of a prospective partner wouldn't preclude a possible relationship with them, a slight preference for one gender or another doesn't really come into that does it? Yeah, a lot of bisexuals have gender preferences. A lot of pansexuals like to say that they are attracted to the person, not the gender, and gender doesn't come into it at all, which inspired my previous confused post. But a lot of bisexuals like to say that too. So... I dunno. How do you tell if you have a gender preference in the first place? I mean, it's relatively obvious for monosexuals, but if you're bi/pan do you have to go through the list of all the people you've ever been attracted to and calculate exactly how many are each gender and how strong each attraction was and do a T-test versus some chance level of attraction calculated based on the proportion of people of each gender you encounter in the first place? It still just baffles me. I consider Bi and Pan the same thing. I consider myself bi, and I am attracted to the person not the gender, in fact when I think of people I never acknowledge their Gender as important if i think of it at all. I think people just use Pansexual to show they are more open, but I never use the term mainly because it is hard to explain xD It's not really a preference in Gender I think, just certain Genders are more likely to have features one finds attractive. For Example i am attracted to Skinny people and clean faces, since women are more likely to have those features I would be more likely to be atracted to them. However it is not their Gender I am attracted to, just the physical features. Does that make any sense? Link to post Share on other sites
Marvin Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 It's not really a preference in Gender I think, just certain Genders are more likely to have features one finds attractive. For Example i am attracted to Skinny people and clean faces, since women are more likely to have those features I would be more likely to be atracted to them. However it is not their Gender I am attracted to, just the physical features. Does that make any sense? That's what I'm getting at, the attraction should be towards the person, not the gender itself. It makes sense that any subgroup (by the definition of subgroup, really) is likely to have certain distinct characteristics which may/may not be more/less attractive to the individual. I think that it'd be easier to think of orientations in terms of groups you wouldn't want a 'relationship' with. Sort of... blanking those groups out from the equation and leaving everyone else as a possibility. So, the defining characteristic of 'pan' would be openness to a relationship with someone of any gender, whereas a monosexual is open to relationships with one particular gender. The personal preferences within the groups left available are then, well, personal preferences. Variable between different individuals, but essentially irrelevant to the definition. Link to post Share on other sites
KayleeSaeihr Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Ohhhh...look at that shine...and the curves...oh that chrome is hot...I bet it wears teflon I'd cook with that. *ahem* Isn't that a pot? Link to post Share on other sites
metalgirl2045 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yeah, a lot of bisexuals have gender preferences. A lot of pansexuals like to say that they are attracted to the person, not the gender, and gender doesn't come into it at all, which inspired my previous confused post. But a lot of bisexuals like to say that too. So... I dunno. That's because most people who are what pedants would insist on calling pansexual call themselves bisexual (and probably vice versa). The difference is that a self-identifying pansexual remembers to acknowledge non-binary genders, a bisexual may not (or may just not wish to confuse people) but that doesn't mean they woulnd never fall for someone like an intersex person. Hence I consider the terms interchangeable in most cases because that's how in practice they get used. Link to post Share on other sites
WhimsicalEsper Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Ohhhh...look at that shine...and the curves...oh that chrome is hot...I bet it wears teflon I'd cook with that. *ahem* Isn't that a pot? I used to think so too, but that's a saucepan. Pots, I think, generally are bigger and don't have a long handle. (?) Link to post Share on other sites
NigelFt Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Very interesting thread ... I identify myself as pan-romantic simply because I have romantic feelings to a specific individual, regardless of their gender. Bisexuality, I believe, but could be wrong, is more linked to a person's gender than pan-sexuality is. I'm also a asexual, because, well, to be blunt, I'm really not that interested in having a physical relationship with someone..... Anyway, the other reason for this post is to ask for advice; I think but not certain, that I am transgender; but I am not sure. I was born male, but I have a greater affinity for females (ie, I don't think I'm all that male ...) And I haven't tried being a TV, even though I'm roughly a size 6-8, and 5'2";( it is a hell of lot easier to buy women's clothes to fit a small person, then it is to buy men's, but I digress...), and I am too much of a wimp to go down the TS route ... I would greatly appreciate any help to sort through this muddle ! P. S; that is definitely a saucepan; a pot can have the same diameter, and height, but does not have a long handle, instead it has two small handles either side of the lid. Link to post Share on other sites
Hayley Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 This thread is giving me a headache haha, but all very interesting. I consider myself to be panromantic, and in all honesty would never refer to myself as biromantic simply because of what the prefix "bi" means - two. I'm sure there are plenty of people for whom the two terms are interchangeable but, for me, it would border on offensive if somebody were to refer to me as bi. It implies (to me) that I am only interested in two genders or sexes, and no others. My calling myself panromantic means that I can develop romantic attraction to people's mental features and personalities but completely zoom past any thing related to their gender. Half the time I'm very attracted to someone before their gender or sex register. I do suspect that the majority of people who consider themselves to be bisexual or biromantic could also fall under the pan- umbrella and are possibly better suited to that label (not that people need labels!) I have, however, also known bisexuals who just had no interest in being involved with someone who does not identify with one of the two genders defined by society, or even someone who is trans. It isn't a feeling that I've ever managed to understand but those people do exist, and it is those that I consider to be bisexual/biromantic. But I won't go into the gender/features/pot/pan thing as just reading your posts made me go cross-eyed. This thread has given me some food for thought, though. Link to post Share on other sites
squiggle Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 -Would that make people who are attempting to try out having sex (regardless of whether they actually had any sexual desire) with people of all genders pancurious,- or is that the station in London that the Eurostar comes into? Oh. No That's St Pancras! Link to post Share on other sites
Beardless Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I consider myself panromantic - but practically everyone I've been interested in now identifies as male. But it's them I love, not what they go by. Link to post Share on other sites
Elliott Ford Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 I would identify as pan-romantic myself but it feels kinda wrong. i mean, i like people, just people, regardless of gender and can't see myslef ever thinking "Hey, this person is the wrong gender so i can't possibly have a relationship with them..." But i know that most of the people i've ever been attracted to have been trans or genderqueer, all the cispeople i've ever liked have been pretty androgynous in appearance and behaviour... so it looks like gender is somehow affecting what i find attractive. if i was going to be over-the-top descriptive about labelling my romantic orientation i would have to say that i'm androgyno-romantic but that seems more than slightly silly. i dunno. i don't want to express a definite preference and leave out the possibility of being attracted to, for example, a cisman. But i also don't want to imply that i'm just as easily attracted to all kinds of people. I'm struggling with androphobia atm so that heterosexual cisman had better be really brilliant for me to even look twice at him (actually, there is one... :) he IS). So i define as Queer. which is a word for people who do not wish to define themselves by their preferences, whilst accepting that they have preferences they just choose not to limit themselves to those preferences. If that makes any sense. which it may not. Link to post Share on other sites
GirlInside Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Ohhhh...look at that shine...and the curves...oh that chrome is hot...I bet it wears teflonI'd cook with that. Most pansexuals I know are attracted to either the Greek god Pan, Peter Pan, or pan pipes. ;) Just like most of us asexuals are attracted to the letter A. :) Link to post Share on other sites
tribal_tiger Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 i'm technically pansexual, but i usually say i'm bisexual or queer, because it gets pretty annoying explaining that i don't have a kitchen fetish. the only difference to me is that a pansexual is openly saying "i accept people of non-traditional genders, and find them (potentially) attractive. i understand that gender isn't an either or, so an other-gendered person doesn't have to worry about me freaking out or having to explain all this gender stuff to me." and a bisexual is saying "male, female. whatever. people not parts." Link to post Share on other sites
Ninny Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I'm potentially pan-romantic, although I identify as aromantic - if I did somehow find myself in a relationship gender, etc just doesn't matter to me :) Deffo pan-aesthetic though :) Link to post Share on other sites
KristineM Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Ohhhh...look at that shine...and the curves...oh that chrome is hot...I bet it wears teflon I'd cook with that. *ahem* Sexuality is mega-confusing. If pan- is all, doesn't that mean that bi- is just two? :S HAHAHAHA! does that mean that tranny chasers like car parts? are they then defined as tranny-sexuals? I'm weird I'm not sure if I really fit a particular sexual label.. I often call myself pansexual, to me meaning that a persons physical sex doesn't seem to mater in that I'm more attracted to the person but that I also have more of a sexual attraction towards the concept of men and sex with them. but am generally repulsed by sex and in many respects afraid of men. I guess this makes me more A-sexual.. I don't honestly know. addendum. I'm not sure it's important, I simply see myself as a female - but am a post-operative intesexed/transsexual woman. Link to post Share on other sites
Lego M Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I identify as panromantic just because I can't think of any other way to identify. I feel like I need something more than just a male or a female... I've liked members of both genders, but it always seems like it's not quite enough. I just want a person. Maybe a boyfriend sometimes, maybe a girlfriend other times... but mostly just... a person. Does that make sense? I guess I'm just starting to realize more and more as I explore my own androgyny that what I'd like the most is a partner who's also androgynous. Someone who can swap roles the way I do; sometimes I want to be a man and take a girl on a date, other times I want to be more feminine and be taken care of by a man. I COULD be with someone who's only male or only female, and I could even be happy with that... but it would feel lacking in that way. I think I'd start feeling trapped in one role after a while. Link to post Share on other sites
AVENCakes Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I think that makes snese, Waffle. I'm not exactly the same way- but I'd rather a nonbinary. But there are also girls, and even some guys, who I wanted to date/have dated- so it's not 100% accurate to say I'm only interested in non-binaries, and I don't think I would be in all non-binaries. Like if someone was bigender/genderfluid and needed a partner who changed as well it wouldn't workf or me, because I don't switch. So pan fits best, even though there's a whole lot of exceptions. Link to post Share on other sites
Quelly Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I have friends who identify as... well just about anything under the sun. My bi-sexual friends tell me that ideally they want both a man and a woman as their partners. Most just usually pick one despite their feelings because it is easier. My pan-sexual friends tell me that the sex of the person is not important to them. A lot of people who are attracted to transexuals identify this way but it is not the defining point. I think that for pansexuals they don't start off with "I am going to find a" insert biological sex "who..." They are attracted to the person(or not), not their sexual organs. Link to post Share on other sites
Jockey Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Sorry to burst your bisexual=pansexual bubble, but as a transgender person, I know that most self identified bisexuals are not, in fact, open to dating transsexuals. A lot just haven't thought about it; but because a person is attracted to men and to women DOES NOT mean that they are attracted to anybody they don't think is a man or a woman. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.