Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 100 Posts

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is it just a term for people who want to come off as absolutely non-discriminating and accepting of all?

Is it a label that sexually confused people like to use to appear more unique and complex?


Personally, I think the human brain is ultimately attracted to standard masculine or feminine traits. Could be that for some people, this is more intertwined and ambiguous, but I have a hard time accepting that for some people the physical/biological aspect plays zero part in their attraction to others. But no, I'm not one of those smartasses who say stuff like ''So by that logic, you could be sexually attracted to a 98 year old, morbidly obese transgender person?''


Thoughts?
 

·
Grumpy old bastard
Joined
·
10,085 Posts
If you think of male/female gender identity as a continuum, then there will be some VERY masculine people and some VERY feminine people. And there will be some in the middle who are neither overtly male or female.
In general, I'm attracted to the VERY feminine ones.

I have a friend who says he is Pansexual. He is attracted to the people in middle - those who are androgynous.

Who am I to question what he is attracted to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: incision

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,463 Posts
I'm a bisexual person with preference for men and I could easily see myself liking a transgender person (especially transwomen) but I don't think the label pansexual adds substance to the "table". I don't think it's a different sexuality if we compare it to the standard hetero-homo-bi, because "bi" is not one thing, it denotes attraction to both which in and of itself is a spectrum of attraction. Dunno if I make sense I hope I am.
If there are any pansexual people here I'd like to see how they explain their preference and how it differs from bisexuality because I'm genuinely curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,048 Posts
Whenever I hear that word, I want to ask if they like animals. Because there's a sexuality for that. Of course mentioning that is considered being mean and "duh of course it doesn't mean that." But why wouldn't it mean that? Pan means all. At what point are these words really used to describe and discriminate between different phenomena vs. describing certain feelings. If someone is very enthusiastic and open about sexuality they might call themselves pansexual, but perhaps it's one of those words that doesn't necessarily mean what it says. Unless when you say pan you mean bread. Bread-sexuality. I like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,016 Posts
I don't understand why everyone needs to label themselves when it starts getting into like extensive branching off and subcultures.

Hello knock knock per c

Can you make more sub section tabs in our profile descriptions.
LGBT friendly is not sufficient enough
I need to have the tab selection... loves roast beef, hot dogs, and hot dogs wrapped in roast beef. Also attach the Kinsey Scale, if you could put a color coding so I can attach myself to one group and to distinguish myself from the others... but pardon me purple and blue are too polarized for me so can you create a new tab option just for me because I am more purple and blue. Fuck per c why are you discriminating against me for wanting to be magenta. On the numbers scale please if you could also add decimals it also helps distinguish me amongst all the lemmings of the world. I am not quite a 4 but not a full 5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,365 Posts
I hope they don't take after their Greek namesake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(god)


Honestly though I think there is enough room in the world to accept that there are two extreme sides on the spectrum of attraction and no one falls in line perfectly with being drawn to one or the other.

The act of attempting to define the complexities of attraction with labels is not a task I see being very fruitful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,822 Posts
I think you should ask someone who identifies as pansexual directly.

It's not my place to dictate whether or not someone is sexually attracted to a multitude of people or not. Sorry.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
659 Posts
I've always defined Pansexual as bisexuality but viewed through the lens that gender is non-binary. 'bi' obviously implies a duality - if one denies this duality exists then 'bi' becomes an inappropriate descriptor.

I could be wrong though - this is only how I have interpreted the term internally.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
'Pansexuality,' at minimum, simply means that (these specimen(s) are more than willing to engage in sexual-relations with hermphodites & transsexuals).

As I understand it, "transexuals / hermphodites / shemales / ladybois / males with vaginas " generally have it rough in the dating atmosphere outside of fetishism / pornographic-fixations. (That neither lesbians, bisexuals or straights) are willing to rendezvous with them.

Not sure if you have seen these specimen(s) naked or imagined (physical-sexual encounters with them); but this another sexuality / attraction entirely. This is another category. The brain is being fed another form of stimuli looking at these specimen(s). The brain goes into a temporal (fdlkgdfoik?) mode; the average (straight/bi/lesbian)-humanoid brain has not adapated to recognize these specimen(s) in nature yet. Perhaps, in 3030 there will just be 'bisexuals'.

____________

Although, I did see a rather gorgeous trans-humanoid the other day. 100% all woman. Feminine facial-characteristics; a magnificient boob-job, this specimen was born a female with a phallus. There is no way this humanoid is a male. It is settled. The argument is absent. Logic; take a break. I would never have guessed this humanoid still had a phallus -- quite frankly, I had a sexuality-lapse, to which her phallus down there became more of a prized practicality. I am not a pan - however, was thinking about scrambling this specimens eggs.

In the LBGT community - especially in the date sphere; there will be (trans-specimen) integrated in the mix, which makes (X)-label(s) useful. "Pansexuality," simply means I [not me specifically] am willing to date (whomever) - which mostly reduces to that (bearded) male-hairy legged female-humanoid hybrid with the tits. Not many lesbians, bisexuals nor straights would rendezvous with a bearded hairy-male female humanoid hybrid with tits with reversed or inoperable genital-functions; realistically or psychologically - emotionally; not just physically.

It says, (Hey trans-specimens, if you wish to approach for (X, Y, X) I'm open to you). Perhaps it is logically incoherent. I do not think the specimen(s) care. Pansexuality is the "supposedly" the 'faux'- position of sexuality, the sexuality of trans / shemales,' et al under logical conditions. Similar to the poseur limbo- fence-sitting agnostics many specimen(s) ignore in spite of the epismetic flaw / incoherence of their position. That is fine by me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
I think it's because they fall in love with the person and not their gender. Or whatever they identify as. So instead of having to explain like: yeah I fall in love with the person, so can be a guy or a girl, or..... Than you just have a simple word for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tabris

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
And that's exactly why I have a hard time accepting this concept. I feel that people who identify as pan are trying to come off as high and mighty or simply more evolved, like ''I'm not a slave to my biological/physical urges, or what society deems beautiful, I look at the person deep down''. Yes, a lot of us do that too to varying degrees, get over yourself. If I had a dime for everyone I thought was smoking hot but complete assholes and vice-versa, but that's part of the human experience. Hell, they tried to tackle that issue in the movie Shallow Hal but ended up contradicting themselves by making women with a beautiful personality appear like models. Sometimes I wonder if this whole thing is not just the product of hardcore social justice warrior and pansexuality is essentially the communism of sexuality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,818 Posts
People label themselves as nonsensical stuff all the time, what's the deal.

I can think of other labels people have been using for over a millenium that have no backing in science and logic, and the world is still turning.

As long as these labels don't impact my wellbeing, I don't care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Just more language play harking back to "we live in the matrix and language constructs our reality" intellectuals who see biology as a phantom villain telling us lies about what we desire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sensational

·
QUEEN PEEN
Joined
·
9,303 Posts
LOL, lots of closed-minded people here. I have been attracted to many types of people who label themselves in varied categories, gender and otherwise. There's no other label that really fits me as accurately, but then again, who cares about the damn label? I like who I like. It is what it is. No label will make it more or less true, so.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
LOL, lots of closed-minded people here. I have been attracted to many types of people who label themselves in varied categories, gender and otherwise. There's no other label that really fits me as accurately, but then again, who cares about the damn label? I like who I like. It is what it is. No label will make it more or less true, so.

I'm not sure who you're referring to as closed-minded considering nobody here as far as I can tell has criticized anyone's actual sexual preferences. Some have even suggested including animals and food into the mix. For my post I'm describing the closed-minded approach to language that suggests we need to explain in the first place that sexuality is complicated. As you said, the label really doesn't matter and yet we routinely hear about new sexual identities that have been around forever but seem to want a place in the dictionary now.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
And that's exactly why I have a hard time accepting this concept. I feel that people who identify as pan are trying to come off as high and mighty or simply more evolved, like ''I'm not a slave to my biological/physical urges, or what society deems beautiful, I look at the person deep down''. Yes, a lot of us do that too to varying degrees, get over yourself. If I had a dime for everyone I thought was smoking hot but complete assholes and vice-versa, but that's part of the human experience. Hell, they tried to tackle that issue in the movie Shallow Hal but ended up contradicting themselves by making women with a beautiful personality appear like models. Sometimes I wonder if this whole thing is not just the product of hardcore social justice warrior and pansexuality is essentially the communism of sexuality.
Perhaps they are "high (&) mighty," - it takes a certain type of humanoid to give a male-humanoid with a vaginal region oral sex, in this age. Would you be willing to rendezvous with a 100% female humanoid aesthetically that could only get-off by bending you over (&) inserting a phallus into your anus (?)

How many straights, confirmed bisexuals, and lesbians do you know are (comfortable with shemales / he-shes / ladybois / hermphrodites / transsexuals - or 'mid-transitioning' specimens) in this age (?)

As technological improvements to make trans-specimens more ambiguous - are many "straights", especially the males, comfortable with being 'sexually scammed' by a trans (?) How many lesbians are ready to get on their knees (&) suck a hard, real phallus attached to a woman (?) It would best to keep the labels, for the time being. Abolishing the label completely, means that 'trans-humanoids,' must identitfy with (X)-gendered attributes they "feel are best," even if logically incoherent via biology - there is no reason for them to disclose their transexuality post-OP nor Pre-OP. Are you ready for this? Are "humans" developmentally/evolution-wise ready to abolish certain 'labels' and useful identification-cards just because they are logically-inconsistent or no longer applicable?

Suppose this female humanoid had a phallus (&) big hairy testicles & dated a straight for months before intercourse entered the horizon:




Is the risk worth it for this trans-human at this time (?) Or should they 'gravitate' towards "Pansexuals" who are 'more evolved' to handle these aburpt changes, and thus the risk is sufficiently reduced (?)



or what society deems beautiful, I look at the person deep down'[/I]'
That is Demisexuality (&) the pretentious sapiosexuals. (All faux-sexuality sexualities, btw).

Labelling any sexuality (re: even bisexuality) is a slave to ones primal/shallow urge(s). (Women attracted to women sexually - but that is all).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
I hate the word, but I'm very sure the concept is important. It's about acceptance of differences and it gives us the ability to talk about an issue like this instead of simply pretending it does not exist.

I do wish they had chosen a word that didn't make them sound like child molesters though... (although to be fair, I'm not against getting sexually attracted to children per se, that's a factor that is often outside of an individual's control. The problem is if they act on it... (althouh that's a completely different discussion again... ))

Point is: if you name yourself "I'm attracted to EVERYTHING", people are going to get the wrong idea.
I don't have a suggestion for a better word though. I'd suggest 'homo' for 'human', but someone told me the word 'homosexual' was already taken...
 
1 - 20 of 100 Posts
Top