Poll of the Day > Can someone tell me whats the difference between pansexual and Bi?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Arv thinks electric frying pans are the most ELECTRIFYING thing in sex entertainment

How is sexuality suddenly about gender?

Sexuality is physical interest, romanticity is emotional interest.

It's really just for people who want to say they're bi but want to feel even more special about it, another overcomplication that people nowadays love to throw into the mix, yes the term has existed for awhile, but nonetheless it's a pointless distinction that's too over specified.

Cruddy_horse posted...

It's really just for people who want to say they're bi but want to feel even more special about it, another overcomplication that people nowadays love to throw into the mix, yes the term has existed for awhile, but nonetheless it's a pointless distinction that's too over specified.

The new hotness is the term "biphobic", so if you feel like being a dick you can call pansexual people biphobic for their choice of label.

I can't keep up with all these sexuality terms myself so don't bother labelling people. IF they choose to tell me their sexuality then I know but outside of that it doesn't concern me. I also don't broadcast my own sexuality as most people probably don't care.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

How is sexuality suddenly about gender?

This is what I find confusing about the subject. Once sex and gender stop being synonyms it's like the words got divorced and gender was awarded everything in the separation.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

How is sexuality suddenly about gender?

Sexuality is physical interest, romanticity is emotional interest.

Words are always changing and evolving as we learn more about people

This gets argued about within the LGBTQ2IA+ community too, ha.

You could argue that pan is more trans/nonbinary inclusive. Although there are definitely bi people that are inclusive of trans/nonbinary folks. Some intense people (only ran into online) argue that bi people are being too 'gender rigid' but really, most aren't (last point being more allegorical since I know a handful of bi folks). Really, it might just be what someone ends up identifying with first, it can somewhat come down to semantics.

I'd say it's probably more likely that a less gender conforming individual will identify as 'pan', whereas a person that identifies more with their gender may identify as 'bi'. Once again, basic speculation, I'm fine with people identifying as either as long as they aren't hateful of other identities.

Interested to hear if anyone thinks this 'pans' out *cough* (sorry, pun intended).

they're all bs social contracts that should be ignored. pointless labels meant to separate everyone into unnecessary groups.

ReturnOfFa posted...

This gets argued about within the LGBTQ2IA+ community too, ha.

You could argue that pan is more trans/nonbinary inclusive. Although there are definitely bi people that are inclusive of trans/nonbinary folks. Some intense people (only ran into online) argue that bi people are being too 'gender rigid' but really, most aren't (last point being more allegorical since I know a handful of bi folks). Really, it might just be what someone ends up identifying with first, it can somewhat come down to semantics.

There are plenty of straight folks ok with trans, as well Usually, it comes down to what they have. But some are fine based on what they identify as. Not as much, though

Nade Duck posted...

they're all bs social contracts that should be ignored. pointless labels meant to separate everyone into unnecessary groups.

I wouldnt say unnecessary. I mean, they help us to explain things. Like if I say Im gay, its understandable

Nade Duck posted...

they're all bs social contracts that should be ignored. pointless labels meant to separate everyone into unnecessary groups.

I've been thinkin g ofways to more or less say this myself but you made it easy for me. Labels beyond what is absolutely necessary annoy me, even the necessary ones t times, I don't like calling myself bi( I just do because it's easy to understand for others), I just want to exist and be in relationships with who I want. These labels feel liek they get in the way and overcomplicate LGBT issues, even with people who are a part of the movement.

most LGBT Labels feel like things Teenagers and college kids call themself to stand out for no other reason than to feel special, there's a reason most of these things come out of Tumblr.

LinkPizza posted...

I wouldnt say unnecessary. I mean, they help us to explain things. Like if I say Im gay, its understandable

Does that mean you're attracted to males (the sex), or people who identify as men (the gender)?

The only reason we have to use the labels in because of the straight people, though. If we didnt have people who thought being gay was wrong, it wouldnt have mattered to not have these specific labels. Big gay people kept saying it was wrong and whatnot. Think about how in Rome, hey could just fuck anyone Now Rome did have its problems. Like with the passive bottoms Other than that, though, they didnt seem to care

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Does that mean you're attracted to males (the sex), or people who identify as men (the gender)?

Only the sex for me So, cis males

A pan sexual stays at home, cooks you meals and has sex with you as their part of the relationship.

A bisexual you just pay for it.

LinkPizza posted...

The only reason we have to use the labels in because of the straight people, though. If we didnt have people who thought being gay was wrong, it wouldnt have mattered to not have these specific labels. Big gay people kept saying it was wrong and whatnot. Think about how in Rome, hey could just fuck anyone Now Rome did have its problems. Like with the passive bottoms Other than that, though, they didnt seem to care

I would not use a slave state as a source of ethical behavior.

shadowsword87 posted...

I would not use a slave state as a source of ethical behavior.

While it happened with slaves more, it wasnt only the slaves

LinkPizza posted...

The only reason we have to use the labels in because of the straight people, though. If we didnt have people who thought being gay was wrong, it wouldnt have mattered to not have these specific labels. Big gay people kept saying it was wrong and whatnot. Think about how in Rome, hey could just fuck anyone Now Rome did have its problems. Like with the passive bottoms Other than that, though, they didnt seem to care

I didn't say Straight people weren't part of the problem, they absolutely are, but ultimately that doesn't have much to do with my core point, Straight people didn't invent dumb labels like Demiboy or genderfluid as far as I know.

LinkPizza posted...

While it happened with slaves more, it wasnt only the slaves

It pretty much did though, unless the bottom was willing to risk his social status and place in society, it had to be with slaves or people who were considered below that of Free men.

Cruddy_horse posted...

I didn't say Straight people weren't part of the problem, they absolutely are, but ultimately that doesn't have much to do with my core point, Straight people didn't invent dumb labels like Demiboy or genderfluid as far as I know.

But not all gay people invented them, either. The people part of that group did. For example, male gay, bi, and lesbian people consider themselves cis male/female Trans usually consider themselves the gender they transitioned to. The gender-fluid people are part of the gender-fluid group Demisexuals are their own group, too I cant really say too much as its not something I really fit in. I only know the basics

Cruddy_horse posted...

It pretty much did though, unless the bottom was willing to risk his social status and place in society, it had to be with slaves or people who were considered below that of Free men.

Its possible some men didnt care. Or have already lost status, and didnt care to get it back, or of losing more. And it also possible some of them bottomed for more than one person. And there may have been some that topped and bottomed. But I dont know what happens in that situation I mean, they still had gay people back then. Its not a new thing That said, from the information I found, it wasnt as simple as if you bottomed, you were always considered bad Most of the time, yes. But not always That said, its not perfect, but still. They were at least a little more progressive in terms of sexuality Eventually, they may have let men just be with men But who knows

LinkPizza posted...

The only reason we have to use the labels in because of the straight people, though. If we didnt have people who thought being gay was wrong, it wouldnt have mattered to not have these specific labels.

I have to disagree with this, even if homosexuality was always been considered ok there still would be people that are straight and others that are gay and thus you would still have the words for both even if gay doesn't become a pejorative term.

Muscles posted...

I have to disagree with this, even if homosexuality was always been considered ok there still would be people that are straight and others that are gay and thus you would still have the words for both even if gay doesn't become a pejorative term.

Maybe. But if straight people never cared about gay/lesbian/bi people and just let people like who they wanted, they maybe we wouldnt need a word for it. It may have eventually had a street word. But if straight people never needed to separate gay people because of what they liked, they we may not have needed a word. For example, Ancient Rome did have certain words for people in certain roles. But the tops normally werent considered anything special, even though they were having sex with men. Wanting to penetrate a younger handsome man was considered normal to them. So, they didnt need a word for it. If liking who you liked was normal without people worrying about genders and sex, then words like straight or gay wouldnt actually be needed You just like who you liked If you dont treat them as different, then you wouldnt need a different word to separate them That said, I think the labels are useful. Instead of me having to keep telling women Im not interested in them, I could just say Im gay But I do think these labels are here mostly because of straight people. But maybe not That said, even if we did have a word for it from scientist (which we do, which is homosexuality), it might have been made by a straight person. Just a joke, thought probably true

LinkPizza posted...

But if straight people never cared about gay/lesbian/bi people and just let people like who they wanted, they maybe we wouldnt need a word for it. It may have eventually had a street word. But if straight people never needed to separate gay people because of what they liked, they we may not have needed a word.

Sexuality labels exist because people love to label things. Even if cis heterosexual folk didn't exist we would still have labels for different sexualities so I think you're wrong on this one.

wwinterj25 posted...

Sexuality labels exist because people love to label things. Even if cis heterosexual folk didn't exist we would still have labels for different sexualities so I think you're wrong on this one.

^^

sry linky

Gaawa_chan posted...

Bisexuals are either: attracted to the gender the same as your own, AND to other genders, or: attracted to two or more genders.
I've seen both used.

Pansexuals are attracted to all genders, generally. Alternatively, that gender simply doesn't factor into whether or not they're attracted to someone.

There's some overlap, obviously.

There's been some manufactured controversy about bisexuality being transphobic- it's not. There's already been a transphobic orientation dreamed up by transphobes that briefly went viral and it was not bisexuality.

It seems to be part of bisexual erasure.

wwinterj25 posted...

Sexuality labels exist because people love to label things. Even if cis heterosexual folk didn't exist we would still have labels for different sexualities so I think you're wrong on this one.

I think recent trend of labeling everything is still somewhat new But maybe. Like Inwas saying, it was never really something that was labeled back in Ancient Rome, for example. That said, people need to label everything these days Which means they may have eventually labeled it around these times But I guess it depends on when we labeled stuff, and how long it wasnt labeled for If it was ever unlabeled

LinkPizza posted...

The only reason we have to use the labels in because of the straight people, though. If we didnt have people who thought being gay was wrong, it wouldnt have mattered to not have these specific labels. Big gay people kept saying it was wrong and whatnot. Think about how in Rome, hey could just fuck anyone Now Rome did have its problems. Like with the passive bottoms Other than that, though, they didnt seem to care

To be honest the thought of Roman times being a better time period to live in sounds like a stretch to me.

MabinogiFan posted...

To be honest the thought of Roman times being a better time period to live in sounds like a stretch to me.

No. They still had their own problems. Just because one thing was better doesnt mean the whole thing was better. Some things were better, and some things were worse That just happened to be something that was better I mean, its better than things are now, tbh And things seem to be headed downhill

Neither is inherently more or less trans inclusive than the other. Someone who is pansexual could be transphobic, and someone bisexual could be a tremendous ally to the community. Also, having genital preferences isn't transphobic. Acting like every trans woman has a penis, and is some sex crazed maniac tricking people into having is transphobic though.

I think for decades bisexual was used as a catch-all for any sexuality that experienced attraction non-exclusively to one gender. New labels have seen a large uptick with the rise of (relatively) safe and available global communication. There is tons of overlap between bisexuality, pansexuality, omnisexuality, polysexuality, ect... The distinctions are important to some people, and that's ok.

People like creating labels with others to feel a sense of belonging in a group. Right gamers/PotDers/<niche community of one of your interests/>?

For whatever reason, some people place upon themselves the duty of gatekeeping their own labels and placing labels onto other people to suit their own personal comfort, which is weird when you think about it. That's not to say we shouldn't learn the labels of other people. There is a difference between "I've never heard of your pronouns, you're pushing your beliefs on me", and racial/sexist/queerphobic slurs.

LinkPizza posted...

No. They still had their own problems. Just because one thing was better doesnt mean the whole thing was better. Some things were better, and some things were worse That just happened to be something that was better I mean, its better than things are now, tbh And things seem to be headed downhill

They had slaves, and while most were treated better than slaves in other places (egypt especially), slavery is never fun. Also even the citizens who were poor lived pretty freaking bad lives to be honest. Just like almost everywhere throughout history a small percentage of wealthy people lived well, while the majority suffered.

Actually it's pretty much better universally in the world right now for the non-wealthy then it has ever been (with some exceptions). Doesn't change the fact that it can still suck, especially when you see the rich living it up all around you, but it's still better then in the past over all.

wolfy42 posted...

They had slaves, and while most were treated better than slaves in other places (egypt especially), slavery is never fun. Also even the citizens who were poor lived pretty freaking bad lives to be honest. Just like almost everywhere throughout history a small percentage of wealthy people lived well, while the majority suffered.

I'm pretty comfortable debating that considering what we've seen in writing is from the roman elite, and we have writing from the egyptian slaves.