Pansexuality is a stupid label

[FuzzyBlueElf]

SubDivi

I was under the impression that pansexual persons were capable of being attracted to anything.

Men, Women, Chairs, Pie, USB Ports, etc.

See, people think that, and then some "pansexuals" say that just joking around, but it really doesn't help people understand what they mean.

As far as I'm concerned, sexuality has everything to do with biological sex and nothing to do with constructed gender identities. Your stance about trans issues (which I am totally in support of) has nothing to do with your physical attraction to a person's body. So I just really (excepting intersexed people) have no idea why pansexuality is a label.

[kami two]

SubDivi

I was under the impression that pansexual persons were capable of being attracted to anything.

Men, Women, Chairs, Pie, USB Ports, etc.

well that would make this clear. Bisexuals only take boys n girls. and pansexuals can take alot more. that really makes sense. if you count objects n animals as well.
but im sure it's not like all pansexuals can fall in love with an object.. there must be pansexuals who like boys, girls and vacuumcleaners, but they'll never fall in love with a chair, while there might be other pansexuals who do like chairs and who will never like a vacuumcleaner.. like that.

[error-dot-tar]

FuzzyBlueElf

SubDivi

I was under the impression that pansexual persons were capable of being attracted to anything.

Men, Women, Chairs, Pie, USB Ports, etc.

See, people think that, and then some "pansexuals" say that just joking around, but it really doesn't help people understand what they mean.

As far as I'm concerned, sexuality has everything to do with biological sex and nothing to do with constructed gender identities. Your stance about trans issues (which I am totally in support of) has nothing to do with your physical attraction to a person's body. So I just really (excepting intersexed people) have no idea why pansexuality is a label.

Actually it does, because a lot of the time trans people are stuck between the sexes. Hormone therapy changes aspects of their body to have certain sexual characteristics that their genitalia doesn't match, especially in FTMs since there's no real options for genital surgery. There aren't a whole lot of people attracted to this mixed bag of sexual characteristics.

[ChiyuriYami]

FuzzyBlueElf

Ok. So here's my problem with "pansexuality." As most people identify it, pansexuality is a natural sexual attraction to personalities and not physical sex. Let me ask you pansexuals something, why do you assume that bisexuals are naturally attracted to physical sex? Bisexuality is simply a sexual attraction to both men and women.

By calling yourselves pansexuals, instead of bisexuals, what you're doing is actually propogating the belief that bisexuals are slutty people who have an abnormal sexual need to be with people of both sexes.

Can someone please tell me why it is so very important for you to segregate and label yourself as something other than bisexual? Because I honestly don't see the need for it.

The only one I can maybe see is if you want to specifically express that you are okay with dating hermaphrodites and transexuals.

Ok. Go.

Becuase simply.. I am pansexual, not Bisexual.
First I don't see bisexual people as sluty people.. you are the one who is somehow seeing that..

You are the one that is weird to say us pansexual should just call ourselves Bisexual.. it ain't the right term for some of us(but it can maybe apply to some others..)

In my case.. I am not attracted toward the physical appearance of males.. Hence I can not be Bisexual or Heterosexual. But unlike a homosexual girl, I can fall inlove with a guy and even have sex with him (if it ever happen). That make me also not homosexual.. then what am I? To me, the term "pansexual" seemed to best describ what I am. That is why I use it.

[Jaydoggy]

Actually, there's nothing against bisexuality or implying that everyone else is a slut. Instead it means that someone is simply uninterested in sex until they really get to know someone. Just because people may be interested in casual sex does not make them a slut, so that's not the implication at all.

[La Veuve Zin]

error-dot-tar

Actually it does, because a lot of the time trans people are stuck between the sexes.

I believe you just illustrated why pansexuality = bisexuality. They're not radically different from males and females. They're pretty much just a combination.

Quote:

There aren't a whole lot of people attracted to this mixed bag of sexual characteristics.

True. But it seems to me this has less to do with a person's sex/gender than with the cultural norms with which we've been raised. Intersexed and transgendered people are just seen as different, too different for closed-minded people to be attracted to.

For the record, being attracted to inanimate objects like chairs is pathological. Animals: it's possible for this to be healthy. Corpses: not so much. Objects: if you can be attracted to a chair the same way you're attracted to males and females of your species, there's something seriously wrong with you.

And since animals are also either: A. male B. female C. all of the above D. none of the above, you can be attracted to humans, horses and those hermaphroditic lizards and still be bisexual.

I'll also repeat that the idea of pansexuality is divisive and makes bisexuals appear closed-minded. It's difficult enough for bisexuals to get respect from gay and straight communities; "pansexuals" aren't about to be taken seriously.

[La Veuve Zin]

ChiyuriYami

I am not attracted toward the physical appearance of males

Congratulations, you are a lesbian.

Quote:

I can fall inlove with a guy and even have sex with him

Congratulations, you are bisexual and contradicting yourself. confused

[FuzzyBlueElf]

kami two

SubDivi

I was under the impression that pansexual persons were capable of being attracted to anything.

Men, Women, Chairs, Pie, USB Ports, etc.

well that would make this clear. Bisexuals only take boys n girls. and pansexuals can take alot more. that really makes sense. if you count objects n animals as well.
but im sure it's not like all pansexuals can fall in love with an object.. there must be pansexuals who like boys, girls and vacuumcleaners, but they'll never fall in love with a chair, while there might be other pansexuals who do like chairs and who will never like a vacuumcleaner.. like that.

Wait. Are you seriously considering attraction to vacuum cleaners part of a sexual identity? Le Veuve hit it on the head when she described that as pathological. And to put that kind of "relationship" on the same level as other person-to-person relationships is tasteless, terrifying, and insulting.

Anyway...
(1) We've got people arguing that pansexuals are attracted to objects and animals.
(2) We've got people arguing that pansexuality means you are open to intersexed bodies.
(3) We got people arguing that pansexuality is a way to incorporate gender construction into their sexual identity.
(4) We've got people saying that all other sexualities are ignorant of the personality of their lover, and therefore pansexuality is a way to explain falling in love regardless of biological sex (I myself believe this to be bisexuality because I'm 100% sure that most bisexuals, just as most other-sexuals, pick their relationships based off a combination of personality AND physical attraction.)
(5) We have someone who claims to be pansexual because she is not attracted to men but will date them...(I thought pansexuality was the all-inclusive sexuality where every object of affection was looked at equally? And never ever based off of physical attraction?)

In conclusion.... PANSEXUALITY AS A LABEL DOESN'T WORK. Nobody has a CLUE what it means, so it CANNOT be a labeled identity, sexual or not.

[rockstar_forever95]

neutral

[Kuriosity Killed the Kat]

Hush! Pancake is speaking!

I like the term better because it includes people who don't necessarily fit into the normal boy/girl mold. I don't think bisexuals (at least not all of them) are slutty, date two people at a time, or are cheaters. I just feel that the bi part of it isn't inclusive enough for me.

That's all; carry on now.

[Possum1254]

The way i understand this is bisexuals tend to choose one over the other and it leaning more towards the sexual part of the relationship.

[La Veuve Zin]

Pancake5630

I just feel that the bi part of it isn't inclusive enough for me.

So....what else needs to be included?

Your sig defines pansexuality as not caring about gender...as if bisexuals do? Obviously, if I'm not squeamish about transgendered or intersex people, and I find both male and female traits attractive, then I can potentially find any human attractive because they all have aspects that are either just male, just female, or both. Transgendered and intersex people have traits of both sexes and/or genders. They don't have a special third sex in there with a Z chromosome or a sex organ that resembles a curly fry and turns green when they're aroused. So why invent a confusing label that essentially means the same thing as bisexual but leads people to think you're attracted to animals or objects?

[FuzzyBlueElf]

Possum1254

The way i understand this is bisexuals tend to choose one over the other and it leaning more towards the sexual part of the relationship.

Also, this is what I'm talking about. Where did this ever come about? If a pansexual person was monogomous, they would also "choose one over the other." And it's a sexual relationship, hence sexual identity. If pansexuality is about non-sexual relationships or avoiding sexual relationships, then how is it even considered a sexual identity to begin with?

I have plenty of non-sexual relationships with many people of both biological sexes and culturally accepted gender roles. I don't claim to be pansexual because I have good friends. I don't get how there seems to be a tendency to deny the sexual part of a sexual relationship with "pansexuals."

Physical attraction is related to sexual attraction. So is emotional and mental attraction. They're all connected.

Just because I'm a gay man doesn't mean that I want to feel up every dude who comes my way. Why would you assume that bisexual people are any more prone to sexual interactions than anyone else?
gonk

[FuzzyBlueElf]

La Veuve Zin

Pancake5630

I just feel that the bi part of it isn't inclusive enough for me.

So....what else needs to be included?

Your sig defines pansexuality as not caring about gender...as if bisexuals do? Obviously, if I'm not squeamish about transgendered or intersex people, and I find both male and female traits attractive, then I can potentially find any human attractive because they all have aspects that are either just male, just female, or both. Transgendered and intersex people have traits of both sexes and/or genders. They don't have a special third sex in there with a Z chromosome or a sex organ that resembles a curly fry and turns green when they're aroused. So why invent a confusing label that essentially means the same thing as bisexual but leads people to think you're attracted to animals or objects?

Also, whereas you're trying to be "inclusive" to transgendered people, you're doing the opposite by basically saying that bodies don't mean anything. Transgendered people have very strong feelings about their body and why they aren't comfortable with it. For you to say "it's okay, it doesn't really matter to me," is like saying "It's okay. I don't really care what's going on with you. It kind of doesn't matter. That panic you feel all the time about being in the wrong body, about having parts you don't want, and wanting parts you don't have, well, it's sort of silly."

[Jessalina]

I don't believe in "pansexuality" the whole point of sexuality is physical. You can be attract to people "personalities," I have a word to people I'm like that with too. I call them "friends". Just because a person is mentally attracted to another person doesn't mean they're physically attracted to that person (I'm not just talking about appearance). To me it just seems silly. I know people who are bisexual (and call themselves such), and they're attracted to people both physically and mentally (and that's what it's about in a relationship). I really don't think you can have one without the other, when it comes to romantic relationships.