Ill be honest. I never understood what Pansexual was, or was supposed to be.

its to the first one more than the second one,
but then again look at Bi, as that one is like a preference too, as you can be bi but prefer females more, or Bi and prefer males more

reason why is I'm also Pansexual, you can say Pansexual and Bisexual run nearly hand in hand.

I thought pansexual meant you hump everything that moves (Including other species than ones own)?

Isn't that omnisexual?

Oh. Another new word learned ^^

actually Pansexual and Omnisexual is the same thing, Omnisexual is Pansexual second name

I see :)

I indeed learn every day ! }:)

I think that is Try-sexual. as in they would try anything once XD (joke stolen from a Cheech and Chong movie; The Corsican Brothers. :p )

no Pansexual is being gender blind, not crossing species still humans

How do you then call someone doing it with everything that has a fitting orifice? (other than pervy nutjob ^^)

no such thing or havent been classified

Jack Harkness

FUCKING LOLD

So you think pansexual would say, define someone who likes a transgender person or such that still recognizes themselves as their original gender or.. something? :P I dunno, I think most people refer to themselves as male and female one way or another, no?

There are people out there who classify themselves as neither male nor female. Hermaphrodites, transgenders, and probably others I have yet to consider.

I suppose I see your point with hermaphrodites, yet I have a lot of trannsgender friends that consider themselves either male or female. At any point though, would the term only be used if you were one of such people and dating/mated/whatever with one of those same others?

Lemme guess...a certain dragon's reference sheet? :P

That's what triggered this, but I would say that it's more of a discussion I had in Sociology class that was the background which supplied the thought process.

Ah, fair enough. I've heard the term thrown around in that class myself. :)

pansexual means that you can see someone as sexy without looking at penis, vagina, boobies, or other gender defining qualities.

Then I guess thats me? I mean I am more attracted to one or the other... though I am not turning a blind eye to a personality. I'd rather have someone that looks mediocre and has a good personality for the long run rather than someone who looks like a super-model and has the personality of a wilted plant. Just my take on it. Though if someone looked like a train wreck, an absolute train wreck and had a good personality... it would be hard for me.


So I dunno, do i qualify?

why yes my friend, you do.

I have also studied this too, I believe pansexuals are believed to be people that love someone no matter what gender, or anything, they love who they are, not what they are, but bi seems to have a standard based on the gender and loving someone on what gender they are. At least that's how I see it :V . It is pretty interesting, I think that pansexual are somewhat related to 'bi' but love is love.

I've used it personally to say that I don't feel such a strong pull towards physical attraction as I do personality. I do enjoy the intimate aspects of life but honestly.. I don't ever really have those "oh my GOD they are HOT" moments when I look at people.. what makes them feel attractive in my mind is how I feel about them. I'm not saying I don't feel any level of physical attraction, because I certainly do (much moreso with dragons than humans, go figure).. just not to the degree most others seem to, at least in the way they react. I can see two people of the same gender and body type, and one feels unattractive to me and the other very attractive, because I know the second one and am close to them.

I honestly don't know if that's the proper usage of the word but it's how I end up feeling -most- of the time.

I just think its retarded and a furry only term cause of ya know, herms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality

Frank Booth. Blue Velvet. Enough said. XP

o3o Honestly, never fully followed the pan or any other other sexual words besides the terms that defines Gay/lesb as well straight and bi o3o I just know there is a lot of -sexual words, like there are different people o3o

Preference:
M/M or F/F = Gay
M/F = Straight

That's it.

If you favor sex in any of the above, you fall under one of those categories. I refuse to believe in true bisexuality, because there is always going to be a favored preference, no exceptions. Nobody is truly 50/50.

Pansexual doesn't even have anything to do with sexuality if it's supposed to refer to personality, thats just wishy-washy bisexualism, which leads right back to the M or F preference.

Thank you so much.
I'm glad that im not the only one thinking this way.
I do think that people like to use 'new and exciting' words, because everyone feels the desperate need to proove that he/she/it and his/her relationship is something special.

You're young, so... this will be taken into account. Pidgenholing the 6 odd billion people on this planet into only two catagories is rather narrowminded. I for one am 100% bisexual, 50/50, right down the line. I've had both boyfriends, and girlfriends, I've been married, divorced, dealt with the possiblity of having kids, or adopting with a samesex partner.

The reason I bring this up, is because I do also consider myself pansexual, I don't care what a person has or has not swinging between their legs, what interests me much more is what's between their ears, and how they use it. A man or a woman to me can look equally as beautiful.

Anyway, the point here is, that's a pretty unfair statment and there /are/ numerous examples of people out there who don't fall into the the two tier system you propose.

I don't consider specifically 50/50 true bisexuality, if I had had even the slightest sexual interest in both genders then I'd consider myself bisexual because it's more subject to change depending on who I'm with. Whenever something is bi- it doesn't have to necessarily mean that both of its factors are to be perfect, straight down the middle 50/50 because not much is really. For some people it can average out to around 50/50, to others it may not.

I do agree with pansexuality being little more than wishy-washy bisexualism though.

Have you ever heard of a hermaphrodite... or a trans-gender? Anything other than the two sexualities you stated? There are people that are sexually attracted to people like this, and pansexual was a term that was created to explain this sexual preference. It can either mean that one does not care about their mates identity (whether they decide through personality is redundant), or one that is sexually attracted to all identities.

The answer is in the word. The rootage, -pan, is Greek/Latin for encompassing. Pansexuality means an all encompassing sexuality.

There are so many factors playing in when someone likes someone its honestly hard to define anything.
Ive dated both genders and honestly I just stuck to the terms "Gay, Bisexual, and straight" nothing more or less.
There is a difference in preference though between the two words and from what i understand of them.
Pansexual is more about love as opposed to lust which a broader term like bisexual would encompess.

Its all so complicated really.
Im dating a guy right now so I just refer to myself as gay. :p

That's how I feel as well. Love in itself is complicated enough as it is, and to determine sexualizes through all these terms and preferences only makes it more confusing.
Being bisexual myself, I'm dating a guy as well, and seem to have a pref for guys (which was all discovered over a short period of time after my ex happened. Long, painful story involved), but I just call myself bi.

yeah lol
The way I see it is if your with a guy and you are a guy, your gay for the time.
You still may have a preference for girls, but your with a guy, so your gay.

I don't like to use labels like that, even if for the time being. To others, it ends up being a false pretense, and they could easily take it the wrong way or judge you poorly.

Yeah, thats typically why I dont discuss my sexuality or who I'm dating with anyone. Gays tend to have some wierd and bad views at times in the public eye.
Its funny because when people find out Im dating a guy after knowing me they give me wierd looks like "really? I never would have known"

Only my friends and mother know I'm bi and with a guy. No one else needs to know. My father is a homophobe, and I dunno how he'd react.

yeah its always harder when you have someone whos a homophobe around.

I don't live with him, so at the very least, he can't see me with my BF. Honestly, I don't trust him knowing.

yeah thats probaly better.
Family issues suck sorry to hear about that.

It's all fine. I just keep it to myself and everyone gets on with their lives. Though, no doubt he's gonna find out eventually. :/

yeah everyne find out about stuff eventually. In most cases at least.
Just be prepared is all

Uh...personality is sexy? I dunno.

Last time I saw a guy call himself pansexual, he meant he'd put his dick in any living thing of any age he could fit it in.

if the human condition is to be understood, then pansexuality as i believe it to be is impossible.

from what i understand it is attraction to personality, not taking physical appearance into account on any level. Whether we like it or not, it is in human nature to choose an appropriate mate, like any other animal, and physical appearance is pretty high on the list of things we subconsiously consider.

Anyone who shares the same definition of pansexual to me and calls themself so, is pretty much lying to themselves. Nobody is beyond primal instincts and the human condition. If we were, we would have died as a species long ago.

Physical appearance has nothing to do with it, it's gender that does not matter. Just like a straight person can still be unattracted to certain women, so can pansexuals be unattracted to certain people.

Personally, the definition "Falling in love with people, rather than males/females" to be best for describing it.

you've missed the point.

anyone who says they dont take physical appearance into consideration when choosing a mate is inadvertantly lying. Its a subconscious whether we like it or not.

People would also naturally, subconsciously, choose a mate of the opposite gender, as a way to procreate. There are exceptions to every rule, and that includes taking physical appearance into account.

No, you've missed the point that your definition is inherently flawed. Pansexuality is not the fact that you can like people regardless of appearance, it's that you like people regardless of GENDER. See?

my arguement still stands regardless of either definition, its the fact that you take everything into account. it's human nature. without basic instict deeply programmed into us, simple things like "must survive", we'd have died off a long time ago.

Nobody can truely disregard any quality in another person. We can make the conscious choice to call ourselved "pansexual", but nobody will ever truely be free from the judgements of our subconscious mind

Yes and no. While the underlying basis of your argument is sound you're missing details. While physical attraction is fairly high on the list that attraction is malleable, as in physical attraction can be shaped. From super simple things such as the color worn in clothing (people find people in red 50-60% more attractive, regardless of appearance otherwise) to what emotional conditions they you meet under, to how they approach you when you first meet, or hormonal balance of both parties when meeting... these all affect how physically attractive you find someone to begin with. Equally since certain personality traits can cause certain feelings when you meet someone this can affect your physical attraction level as well. So it tends to come full circle the attraction based on other elements causes physical attraction.

Of course, I just saw this on /y/...

"Asexual- Utterly Lacking a Sex Drive.
Heterosexual- Attraction to the Opposite Gender.
Homosexual- Attraction to the Same Gender.
Bisexual- Either the Opposite or the Same Gender.
Pansexual- Opposite, Same, and Everything in Between.
Omnisexual- See Pansexual."

I think it MORE describes Relationship preference. But Sexually, it explains that a person doesnt "care" whether or not you are gay, straight, bi, trans, herm, etc etc, it jsut states that you are in love or interested in the person's essence not their outside. Its an ALL ACCEPTING descriptive title for someone, when bisexual (male AND female) just isnt enough.

Thanks for adding your 2 cents. I had a feeling you might reply in this journal. I think this is probably the best general statement that I've come across. There will always be exceptions, but as a whole I'd say this works as a decent definition. :)

ive always considered a pansexual to be an individual that is willing to have sex of any type with any gender. for instance a guy that will take a cock up the ass then turn around and give the cock up the ass to a male then go drill a chick, then go get a blow job from a male or female then go give one himself. not all at once or in that particular order. its just a term to displace the ... position... of a bisexual. kinda...?

see? this is why i always put a third checkbox next to surveys askin for gender... there should be one that says 'its complicated' :P

I skimmed over the journal i believe you have pansexuality and demisexuality confused and kinda mashed together.

I can't say I've ever heard of demisexuality.

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/inde.....tle=Demisexual

hmm... guess im bi

Wow... What a clusterfuck. XD

Seems the term is pretty much nothing but a debate starter. I'm just gonna stay out of this.

note to self, becarefu when using big words around Morca~

What a logitimate and stable way of lookng at it. I can tell that you did your researchand happened to take in what you read and thought about how to understand the subject matter. I applaud you for that.

I'm sure a lot of people are learning from this.

Thank you for being the one to type it. =)

Which means I am totally not a pansexual, because I've been sexually attracted to people by looks alone. Yet at the same time, I am, because I would never do any sexual act unless I love their personality, which also has a stronger aspect on my attractiveness towards said people.

I think that you can be a pansexual and still be attracted to the way someone looks. The difference comes when you find importance in someone's biological sex or not. That is essentially the determining factor. Otherwise it's just a preference based on personal interest.

I've tried to understand pansexuality too, but I've often seen people describe in a much similar way to how I define bisexuality, and I've never really seen a difference between the two.

Isn't this what some chefs are?

Chefs? As in cooking? I don't see the relation.

PAN sexual.... Ow.

i understand this real good so whats going with this male and female bi

Morca, I'll quote what I wrote to another user in this thread:

"...I don't care what a person has or has not swinging between their legs, what interests me much more is what's between their ears, and how they use it. A man or a woman to me can look equally as beautiful..."

I'm not precicely certain if this would extend outside my current species (homosapian) but that's something I would take on a case by case basis, were I confronted with the choice.

A bisexual is fully permitted to like feminine men, masculine women, and anything else in between... just like gay men are allowed to like feminine men and gay women are allowed to like masculine women, and vice versa. Pansexual is a subtle way of saying you aren't limited to people, most of the time.

it's for people that think they're too cool to be bisexual, but they really aren't; it's like a subgenre that's completely pointless, like emos

Pansexual is literally defined as "Ignoring the sexuality" if I recall right. So in other words, it's a person that completelly ignores a person's gender to determine whenever they are attracted to them or not. It's not the same as bisexual in the sense that bi people do like both males and females, but not in the sense they ignore the gender, but just that they can accept both.

It's up to debate really XD

the root -pan means encompassing, not ignoring. It is an all encompassing sexuality. This is not limited to males and females, but includes trans-genders and hermaphrodites.

Now I remember :P

Kinda wanna draw a graph here. Too lazy. Also too many dimensions.

It sounds like we're dealing with two things here, attraction to the body and attraction to the mind. Making things further complex, there's sexual attraction and non-sexual, which I guess I'll call aesthetic, attraction. Let's say for the sake of simplicity that you're a guy. You could have sexual attraction to guys only--making you "gay", or girls only, making you "straight", or some mixture, making you "bisexual" with a leaning one way or the other. You could have aesthetic attractions to the same or different genders too, which generally don't have any special names that go along with them. A gay guy might appreciate the aesthetics of a pretty woman, a straight guy might appreciate a nicely toned male figure. More commonly, I think, people have aesthetic attractions more in line with their sexual attractions when it comes to the body.

This can play out in interesting ways. For example, I have a male friend who definitely has aesthetic and sexual attractions to the female body, but also has strictly sexual attractions to the male body. Even more interesting, he seems to have aesthetic attractions to the typical male mind, but not the typical female mind (girls are usually complicated). Pretty sure he's got sexual attraction to the typical male mind (he loves the idea of being pinned to a wall ;3) and not so much the female mind. I guess his perfect match would be a bossy feminine-build herm with the maintenance requirements of a dude >.>;

Thing is, we're dealing with sliders here, not check boxes. These things aren't just binary switches. There's no neuron in there which you could prod to make someone go from 100% "I LOVE TITS" to "Mmm, I want your man milk." There are many different levels of attraction, and they're not mutually exclusive. There aren't just many different levels, there are many different sub-categories. You can see this play out nicely in fetishes; some guys think that putting sopping wet tits on anything--guy or girl--makes it better. Others want a dick on anything, guy or girl. Some people like womanly curves but only on guys. Some want a dominant, strong-willed partner regardless of gender, or for men only (I see this type a lot, they want their men manly and their women womanly).

And we're dealing with combinations here too. You could have someone who enjoys the overall package of a simple-minded brutish guy with a big dick, but wouldn't enjoy the simple-mindedness or big dick applied to a skinny guy, although they do enjoy a girly boy.

Summary, shit is complicated. Stupid complicated. People are trying to boil it all down into a few simple terms they can throw around, and really, I think that's pretty silly. Are we saying that the differentiating factor between a pansexual and a 50-50 bisexual is that the pansexual cares about the mind of the individual in question, but the bisexual doesn't give a fuck? I find that to be a completely silly notion. Here's our ultra-shallow bisexual, he'll fuck the most evil person in the world (or a human vegetable) as long as they have a great body. And here's our pansexual, he'd date a brain in a jar because he only cares about the mind. Both extremes are generally not going to happen. Same thing for the idea of a perfect 50-50 balance between enjoyment for male and female--existing in that state is like balancing on the head of a pin. Are we really supposed to believe that someone who's bisexual has not the slightest leaning towards males or females? How could you even verify this? And for someone who isn't a pansexual, do we assume that they don't care at all about the mind? If being a pansexual means that you ONLY care about the mind then I'm pretty sure that almost nobody falls into this category, if being a pansexual means you DO care about the mind to some degree then I'm pretty sure that almost everyone falls into this category.

Ultimately, the problem is that we're trying to apply group labels to things which are squishy. If you make the labels only apply to the absolute extreme fringes, then the labels are fairly worthless because almost everyone is in the middle region, not the extremes. If the labels apply to general regions, then it boils down to squishy words like "mostly" which mean different things to different people and really aren't that powerful. Worse yet, people use these loosely-defined words to make binary decisions: "This guy is gay, so I won't show him this art because it has a girl in it. Nevermind that the art is amazing and the woman has very nice aesthetics and he might actually be in the section of gay which appreciates those things... he says he's gay, so tits must make him flee squeeling."

Argh. I gotta go to work. Nobody gon' read this anyway.

Read it. Understood it. Agreed with it.

^-^ cool, someone did!

Read it as well, but not sure I have anything of value to add since it feels like you're exploring the topic under a different scope.

Still to this day i have no idea what Pansexual is, some people say its were you'll fuck any thing that breathes, or dosen't breathe... which creepes me out o-o

This is the problem of using labels and adjectives, as they're up to interpretation. Genre is another pet peeve of mine. They serve as some sort of starting point to a dialogue about the matter, though.

I make love to saucepans
don't judge me

I refer to myself as pansexual to mean I find all the various combinations of genders potentially physically attractive.

However, as far as actually attracted to beyond sex, the combination of a lack of physical sex variety in real life (sure there are a few but I would guess it is maybe 1% of the total population at MOST.) my lack of interest so far in absolutely ANYONE I've known face-to-face and the fact that human men just aren't as sexy as our furry character counterparts, physically at least, IMO, I end up somewhere between slightly bicurious, straight, or outright asexual in real life.

I find women attractive, I don't find men attractive. I consider myself Bi, as I have absolutely no problem playing around with other men. Just because I don't find someone absolutely sexually attractive doesn't mean I won't consider sexual relations.

That said, I have my preferences, like most (no I didn't say all)people do. I prefer someone to be between the twink and normal through to the athletic build. Women I can go with more padding on.

While I may not agree with everyone who claims themselves to be pan or other than straight/gay/bi, I'm not close minded enough to believe there aren't people out there that truly fit the bill.

A topic brought up here at least once every quarter, if not more frequently. Debate always ensues and sometimes ends in hurt feelings, name calling and lots of misunderstandings :p Nice to see this thread not going that direction :D

well here's my thoughts,
bisexual: attracted to males and females.
homosexual: truly in love with the same gender
Heterosexual: loving and preferring the opposite gender (though every guy is gay my proof, answer the questions: do you only watch lesbian porn? do you like seeing a guy do a girl with a soft penis?)
Bicurious: normally straight/gay, but willing to try new things; neutral
Homocurious: exploring same-sex relations
Heterocurious: an imaginary affiliation of exploring opposite-sex relations
Hermosexual: relations involving herms {anal=gay, vaginal=hetero}
Transexual: changing to the opposite gender in order to fulfill a societal/sociological standard.
Cross-dressing: sometimes called 'gender confusion', sometimes believed to be caused by gender confusion, also called 'drag' (males dressed as females).


personally, if you are going as far as to cross-dress, of have a sex change, you are too worried about what society thinks of you and should just be either gay, straight or bi; don't go around confusing people. Even I mr. tol;lerant has a limit... >.<

If you actually think that then you have no idea how gender identity issues work.

That was the overly simple explanation, and a very general one at that. If I went into any specifics I would have surly had may comme3nters complain about, "that isn't true for all *insert their preference here* "

note: I'm a furry... err, scalie; I don't get out much and I don't watch the news other than for weather or my job.
That, and the fact that I don't live within 200 miles of a large city, mean my opinions are are prone to bias.

Well, so you are aware: gender identity and sexual preference are not directly related. A ton of male to females only like women and a ton of female to males only like men. They're two separate things.

Cross-dressing is more complicated, since for some it's purely fetish, for others it's about shaping perceptions (which is also separate from sexual preference), and many other things.

I just know that transsexual and cross-dressing (specifically drag) are choices, the others usually are not.

but thanks for being a good person and clarifying

Transgenderism is about as much of a choice as being gay is.

Cross-dressing is like a choice like doing anything you enjoy is.

The pansexuals I met usually use the term as far as relationships/general attraction. They don't really care much about the physical differences, but are more personality-oriented. So in a way, it's saying they don't really have a sexuality, as they find the people attractive far, far more than their physical appearance.

Homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual always implies some type of physical element to the attraction. Chances are you're not going to find a homosexual guy dating an extremely tomboyish girl due to the physical factor, even if she has a complete boy mentality/personality.

Bisexual's just to cover the gray area. Arashiin up there probably pissed off a bunch of people by saying what s/he did. There's a gradient; if I say I like cool gray 80% or 20%, I'm not going to say it's black or white because there is an element of something else in there. Bisexuals will probably always have a preference, while pansexuals would be the more elusive 50-50 type because they just don't care about physical "gender".

I find sexual preference to be malleable, so I feel making the choice to love based on personality comes full circle and also becomes the sexual preference. I chose pansexual as an idea first and it became my sexual preference over time.

Reading through the comments it's interesting to note that the people with the most inflexible arguments are the people who have the least information on the subject on a whole. I've always thought it's interesting that it seems like the more one learns the more one opens up to alternative ideas and view points.

Always helps to be informed! I wanted to learn about the subject, and hope that other people are too. :)

Yeah. I've been studying it off and on for years, partly out of need. It's a fascinating subject that's for sure. :D

Doesnt really make a huge amount of sense to me, just a posh way of saying "Bi, but I like personalities first".

I agree with you on this one. 'Pansexual' is BS invented by people who feel that 'bisexual' is "sooooo mainstream" (or otherwise a negative term).
If you are sexually attracted to human beings regardless of gender, you are a bisexual.
Hell, if you were only attracted to horses of either gender, you would STILL be bisexual. :V

What about humans that aren't male or female, such as XXY folk?

True hermaphrodites (people born with both sets of genitals) are incredibly rare. Everyone else is going to be some verity of transgender on hormones or has had a sex change. Now wither you want to go by their junk or their genes is kinda subjective, but legally at least, you have to be either male or female, so your options (at least from an outside view) are going to be straight, gay or bisexual.
If you INSIST on being called a 'Hir' or are one of the extremely rare few who are genuine hermaphrodites, the term 'pansexual' still wouldn't apply because it's only difficult to define if you're only attracted to one gender. If you like both males and females, you're still bisexual. I am kinda curious what you'd call a hermaphrodite who only likes men or women...?

If you're only attracted to transgender people then good luck. :V I've never met anyone like this, but even then, the term 'pansexual' (someone who is sexually attracted to personalities) still doesn't apply.

It's really not that rare at this point, the rate is really high in the US thanks to fertility drugs... currently somewhere around 1 in 1000 have an additional sex determining chromosome last I checked. Also, the term "true hermaphrodite" is incorrect they don't usually have both sex organs, but rather some strange between (most of the time. There are the extremely rare that do have both sets, but I've only ever seen one, personally.)

You're narrowing down people that are transgendered as some prefer alternative or middling gender characteristics for their self image or have identitied that have nothing in common with male or female. The legal end of it has little bearing on anything other than further legalities, which a different subject entirely.

Liking both males and female is not the same as liking something that is both male and female, nor is it the same as liking woman with a penis instead of a vagina, or a man with a vagina instead of a penis, or liking someone that has neither, or someone that has something between.

Generally speaking about 80-90% of the people I meet that classify themselves as bisexual like men to be men and women to be women. The ones that I meet that find they like combinations thereof or alternatives to usually are not satisfied with the word bisexual. Pansexual has been around for quite some time (1920) and suits more nicely, both in it's modern usage and its original definition.


Frankly, when you get right down to it, I prefer specificity to language (a lot of people do), because it increases the speed at which I can share ideas. Give me "internet" over "network", "blog" over "log", or "pansexual" over "bisexual". On that note: why is a much older word called into question more often?

the big problem i have here is "usually are not satisfied with the word bisexual."
just because they don't LIKE the word doesn't mean it's not accurate. The few "pansexuals" I've met have called themselves that because they've felt that bisexuals are undesirable to be associated with (which is prejudice on their part).

Again, just because a man is feminine or a woman is masculine doesn't make them 'third option gender'. Liking people who like to bend gender doesn't mean you have a preference for people who are neither female or male, and even if it did, Pansexual means an attraction to all genders (or to the more pretentious ones 'certain personality types').
If you're an effeminate man or a masculine woman, you are STILL a man or a woman. it may be complicated, but you still physically and legally come under the definition of one or the other.
You can have a fetish, kink or preference for gender bending, but that does not make you a different brand of sexuality.

.... But, you're right. At the end of the day, it's just language and language is fluid. My REAL beef here, is people who think bisexuals are 'dirty'. There's an unpleasant stereotype that goes around that bisexuals are sluts who just want to fuck anything that breathes, and I don't think separating people who are attracted to both genders into separate categories helps.
Anyone who says otherwise doesn't deserve sex of any kind from anyone or anything. :V

It's not accurate and that's why I and most of the people I know don't like it. As for the prejudiced, that's the problem of the folk with those prejudices. Equally some brandish the same stereotypes when talking about pansexuals or homosexuals. That's nothing new and shouldn't be a determining factor in your choice of terminology.

I didn't say it did. What I did say is that there's more than just that small spectrum of options you keep going back to. There are people that are outside of the physical definitions of men and women (not just intersexed people either), even down to a chemical level. From a medical science standpoint these people are not men or women, nor are they from a psychology standpoint.

As for the legal definitions, they peg intersexed folk as one or the other only because they don't have a system outside of that. That has nothing to do with them being one or the other, it just means they're being pigeon holed into a convenient slot they end up — more often than not — spending most of their life fighting against.

The word 'pansexual' is also a clear message to those with alternative gender identities that they will be accepted as a prospective partner. Like it or not this is very helpful. The word 'bisexual' gives absolutely no measure that someone with an alternative identity or physical characteristics will be accepted.

Alright, I speak only for myself now. While the balance of chemicals in a human body is certainly a pretty wide variable, I believe there's still only truly two genders. That can fall either by what's between your legs, or what's in your head.

Now, by my OWN logic, if what's in your head is 'other', then there's a problem. Me personally, I defect to 'between the legs' option.
Is this wrong of me? Is this flawed? You definately have me on "same stereotypes when talking about pansexuals". Like I said, all the ones I've met have been... less than great. I'm sure there ARE great people out there calling themselves 'pansexuals' but I haven't met them yet.

When I see a census form have an option for 'other' under gender, I'll change my mind on this. I'll even support people trying to make that change happen. But if that ever happened, would 'trisexual' be an equally valid word? How many genders is enough to be accurate? Three? Five? Where do you draw the line?
I'd like to know what kind of research there is on chemical gender balances (that's not a challenge, I'm just curious.)

"That can fall either by what's between your legs, or what's in your head."

Since there's things under both that don't fit under male or female this doesn't work. You are glazing over intersexed people and people that are completely outside of male and female for gender identity as well as many many people that are close to the rims of those identities but do not like to be pegged as either. These do not fit under one or the other on the "in your head end" and a good many don't fall under that measure on the "between the legs" measure either.

My own is what's referred to as "gender flux" I transition between identities that are male, female, neither (both sexless and sexes entirely divorced from male and female... these are abstract and not explainable), or both.

I feel it is wrong to pigeon hole people against their personal wishes, yes. Also again, defaulting to the "between the legs" approach doesn't work for many intersexed people. For some because they don't quite have male or female parts others because you can't see what they do and don't have. Also, if you default to what's between the legs, do you consider a MtF that's had the operation female or male? Because they still don't have a vagina, they have a penis, it's just been heavily modified. You're trying to apply logics to a topic that is so abstract that there's no clear lines along any point in the path.

As for the stereotypes, no idea, most of the people I've met that are bi, pan, or otherwise are decent folk.

So, if women weren't included in census data would that mean they don't exist to you? Things like censuses and laws are very arbitrary measures, often with with equally arbitrary foundations. You don't draw lines, that's the point, it should be open ended or not even a consideration in the data.

I'm sure there is, but I'd just be rooting around on Google to find it. I don't keep much info handy on this stuff anymore as I rarely talk to people about it at this point. It's usually more trouble than its worth because people who don't have gender identity problems rarely understand gender identity problems in anything other than a vague topical fashion.

For me, and how I've heard it used -- (don't trust the internet, language is a living thing) -- it describes someone to whom the physical parts mean nothing, or at least are irrelevant to the selection of a partner, romantic or sexual. People tend to describe it as "personality" because they reduce the irrelevance of sexual organs to complete ignorance of the physical body.

I think a pansexual can still appreciate and admire, and be attracted to physical attributes, but the only real defining characteristic I've heard is that gender identity and/or physical gender aren't a negative/positive factor for pansexuals.

from what i know, it's not actually a term of sexuality like straight or bi. it's more of an opinionated term that simply states acceptance of all forms of sexuality. an example would be myself. i'm bi and pansexual. this means i i'm fine having sex with either men or women and that i'm accepting the fact that there are many other forms of sex out there and i'm totally fine with them being around (in existence). necrophilia (sex with the dead) is one one of sex that i wouldn't want to be involved with, but i'm totally fine with the idea that other people want to do it.
it's odd that i don't find pansexual in any dictionary though. it seems to be a modern term.

Agreed.

I understand pansexuality as a rejection of bisexuality, as "bi"sexual implies there are only two sexes. A pansexual is attracted to men, women, and transsexuals (including herms, futanari, cuntboys, etc)

I see what you mean though, people use it far too often to express some different mindset or understanding of gender. Sexual orientation doesn't work that way.

I disagree that it doesn't work that way. Can you explain how it does?

Your wording is confusing, what are you asking me to explain?

Sorry, mistyped.

"I disagree that it doesn't work that way. Can you explain how it *doesn't?"

This was in direct reply to what you had said.

Well I hear a lot of people say thing along the lines of "I'm pansexual because I look past a person's body and love them for who they really are." That's not your sexual orientation, that's just a person being more attracted to personality traits, etc. That would be like me saying "I'm gay because I find myself more compatiple with men since we understand each other better."

I see people say the latter often enough.

So what would you call it then? A lack of sexual orientation?

I'd call it a wrong use of the word, or a lack of understanding. You don't get to choose your sexual orientation. Anyone who says "I'm this sexual orientation because-" so and so really doesn't understand how orientation works. It's something you're born with.

There's no certainty in the idea that anyone is born that way, it's merely a theory (we have yet to find a human sexual orientation determining chromosome). I'm sure it's true for some but a ton of research shows there are other possible causes as well. Other determining factors can be: certain experiences during the id period, chemical reasons, certain types of mental conditioning, or consciously if you can tap into certain parts of how your mind words and guide them in a particular direction (such as I have done). It is not uncommon for people to change sexual orientations during the span of their life either. It's a very complicated subject. Physical attraction has some very unexpected keys that have nothing to do with what a person looks like (and often nothing to do with their gender) and these can be tapped into.

In the span of my life I've gone from heterosexual, to bisexual for a brief period, to homosexual for a briefer period, back to bisexual, then to pansexual through conscious manipulation of my own thought process until I reshaped the ways and reasons I am sexually attracted to anything to begin with. I am using these words quite literally. So that you're not confused: I was only physically attracted women, then I was physically attracted to men and women (this was not a realization, I did not find men attractive before and have never had guilt surrounding the subject thanks to open parents), to only being physically attracted to men, back to men and women, then over a course of time, with conditioning, to gender no longer being a determining factor.

Well I guess that would make you a rare case, because there are plenty more out there of people who tried to repress or change their orientation. People who were sent to Gay Camp to "cure" them, or people who just spent their lives in denial. I don't think they would say they chose to have such a personal struggle. And I would say the same about people who've been abused or rejected by their family and friends because they came out as gay or bi or pan, I wouldn't call that a choice.

Let's say that for the most part, it's not a choice. Then we can stay on the topic at hand. Are you saying I'm wrong in accusing people of using the wrong name or reasoning for their "sexual orientation", or were you just going off on a tangent?

How are you determining that it's rare? I could easily say that I see it often, but that would be anecdotal in both our cases.

As for the people where it doesn't apply, well obviously it doesn't apply to those people. You're throwing up the "they didn't choose" defense when I never said they did or could about those people. All I did is say there are additional factors to consider than the ones you've been considering.

Let's not say that. Lets say we have no idea to what degree it is or isn't a choice and that we don't know to what degree it varies from person to person. That would be much more accurate.

Neither of us has strayed from the topic at hand, nor was there a tangent.

I would say that you are trying to turn something that has never been a black and white issue (and never will be) into one. As it currently stands there isn't enough hard fact on the subject on the whole for anyone to be definitively 'right' or 'wrong' and there is more evidence pointing to the idea that it is a grey area that varies from person to person.

Alright. That is fair. I'd rather not think of it as a choice, it gives too much power to those that would hate and discriminate againts people for their sexual orientation. But I will try not to think of it as such a black-and-white deal, as you said.

It doesn't give them any additional power really, those people will find every argument and excuse they can anyway. With how many they use the idea that it could be a choice for some doesn't really give anything they say any more weight than they had before. It'd be like the difference between word vomit and word vomit with bits of word corn in it. :B

hehehe, excellent analogy XD And you're right. Haters gonna hate :P

The word Pansexual is used to define an indifference to gender. As a pansexual you look at who the person is personality wise more then what they look like and what kind of genitals they have.

I was just about to post that the word doesn't exist in my books, but at least someone here put it in clear english for me. ^^

I never thought the word existed, and that it was just slang that people invented. I can't think of anything to use as an example right now, but I'm sure you know what I mean, though.

glad i could provide a light of clarity, us Pan people get a bad wrap cuz people who claim to be pan dont understand what it means to be it. so they throw out haphazard definitions like "it means you you'll have sex with anyone" or " it means we just dont care about looks when it comes to sex." which pisses me off frankly. Pan is a mind set in which outward appearance HAS NO FACTOR in your interest emotionally sexually or other wise in a person. so there is no Gender prejudging people and what not, nor is there any gender separation of people, because in the end, people are people.e

Its equal opportunity in regards to possible relationships, weather your tall or short, lean or fat, man or woman.

Meh, I have considered myself pan before, because how I feel is complex to explain.

The reality?

Ask me and I'll tell you, I hate someone trying to summarize my deepest emotional feelings under a category like "thats gay" or "thats straight".

That being said I fail to see the ultimate lust over a specific gender of person.

well, i ain't gonna throw two cents because i'll not taking point here, but i'll give my opinion...

categorizations suck...

for me: pansexual is someone who haves romantic/spiritual to someone, and not being bothered to have sexual attraction to it: men, women and exceptions to those two bigger groups (herms are an example of said "exceptions", i will not give my statement about transexuals because i don't intent to piss off any transexual or anyone here, since one could say "yup, i'm an exception" while others can say "no, i am NOT! AND YOU'RE A STUPID FUCK!"... see why i hate to categorize people?)

for someone else, it could be just humping anything that haves an orifice... for another person it could be attraction to the spiritual person and total disregard for the outside.

well, i can speak for myself and say i am something that can't be categorized (a straight guy that likes furry porn, gay or not), but know that i get that insecurity, the feeling that this could hurt someone (and it can, people don't need to have manners on the internet, so they can do to me here what they wish they could do IRL)

anyway, the question should be not "what is a pansexual?" but "who uses it and why?", "who embraces this word? and who hates it?" among other questions that humanity may NEVER have an answer...

I'm afraid you've got it all wrong.
http://db.tt/WD1LQiw


But seriously. I use "bisexual" to mean that I'm not opposed to putting my mouth on either kind of genitals, and all that jazz. In my experience, people use "pansexual" to mean exactly the same thing, except they're the sort that won't let a word out of their mouths if it doesn't acknowledge everyone's identity, and they don't mind being asked to define every other word that comes out of their mouth.

Straight from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Definition of pansexual: exhibiting or implying many forms of sexual expression