Pansexual vs. Bisexual?

• animeshadows wrote on 2011-12-26 18:45

  Quote from Micho;707158:

  My friend is pansexual, well she identifies herself as pansexual.
  
  From my understanding she doesn't care about gender what she looks for is what's inside (cheesy enough as it is). If her and that person clicks personality wise, she'll be interested in that person regardless of gender whether it be a girl, boy, transvestite, etc. But yeah, correct if I'm wrong but that's what's pansexual is? While bisexuality is just that you're attracted to male and females. . .

  
  
  Question change. Let's put this to an example. Say John Doe is attracted to men, women, and hermaphrodites, but NOT those who are androgynous. What sexuality is he, and why? He clearly cares what gender the person is, because he has chosen three. However, he is not strictly attracted to men and women.
  
  What people are saying is that he is NOT bisexual because he does not consider only men and women, but he is NOT pansexual because he does not consider every gender. This is where I get confused.
• Chiyuri wrote on 2011-12-26 18:50

  Quote from animeshadows;707137:

  Question spawning: Genetically you have XX, or XY. Male, or female. In certain cases (which are rare?) this is not always the case, making you both sexes. If bisexuality is attraction to both sexes, it doesn't matter if you are XX, XY, or something in between. This being said, bisexuals are not attracted to ALL genders, but can have more than two, where as pansexuals are considered as all.
  
  
  Say, for instance, that I am attacted to "male" and "female" genders, along with certain GQs. Am I bisexual, or pansexual? I am not attracted to strictly two, but I am not attracted to ALL.

  
  
  Even if you dress a guy in a dress and make him look like a girl (as long as he keeps clothing), a bisexual person or even an heterosexual male (or homosexual female) will be attracted to them, as long as they don't know what's under the clothing. Bisexuals are usually attracted to both sex Seperatly as well as both Gender seperatly(it's more lenient for the gender through) They will usualy look for a specific type of person in "males" and a different kind of specific type of person in "Females"
  
  As for your instance, I guess you could fit as Pan-curious (made up that word right now)
• animeshadows wrote on 2011-12-26 18:54

  Quote from Chiyuri;707167:

  Even if you dress a guy in a dress and make him look like a girl (as long as he keeps clothing), a bisexual person or even an heterosexual male (or homosexual female) will be attracted to them, as long as they don't know what's under the clothing. Bisexuals are usually attracted to both sex Seperatly as well as both Gender seperatly(it's more lenient for the gender through) They will usualy look for a specific type of person in "males" and a different kind of specific type of person in "Females"
  
  As for your instance, I guess you could fit as Pan-curious (made up that word right now)

  
  
  You're doing some circular reasoning here. If a MAN dresses himself up as a woman, claiming he is a woman, his SEX is male and his GENDER is female. People are saying though that bisexuality is attraction towards only MEN with MALE as a gender, and WOMEN with FEMALE as a gender, and not anything inbetween, saying the mixed/ambiguous case falls under pansexuality, ONLY IF it doesn't matter what the combinations are.
  
  Still looking for an answer in regards to the example of John Doe.
• Conor wrote on 2011-12-26 18:55
  What you've said seems fine/correct to me. Yes, pansexuals are technically bisexuals since they are attracted to all genders, but bisexuals aren't necessarily pansexuals since they may not desire certain genders but can be sexually attracted to both sexes. I'd imagine that it's likely that the people who you've discussed this with don't understand the two terms, aren't really bisexual, aren't very open-minded, aren't humble and are acting self-righteous for their strict, though arguably extreme, separation of gender and sex.
• Akemii wrote on 2011-12-26 19:00

  Quote from Conor;707172:

  What you've said seems fine/correct to me. Yes, pansexuals are technically bisexuals since they are attracted to all genders, but bisexuals aren't necessarily pansexuals since they may not desire certain genders but can be sexually attracted to both sexes. I'd imagine that it's likely that the people who you've discussed this with don't understand the two terms, aren't really bisexual, aren't very open-minded, aren't humble and are acting self-righteous for their strict, though arguably extreme, separation of gender and sex.

  
  
  Wish I could rep you my love.
• animeshadows wrote on 2011-12-26 19:02

  Quote from Conor;707172:

  What you've said seems fine/correct to me. Yes, pansexuals are technically bisexuals since they are attracted to all genders, but bisexuals aren't necessarily pansexuals since they may not desire certain genders but can be sexually attracted to both sexes. I'd imagine that it's likely that the people who you've discussed this with don't understand the two terms, aren't really bisexual, aren't very open-minded, aren't humble and are acting self-righteous for their strict, though arguably extreme, separation of gender and sex.

  
  
  So then it is safe to say that bisexuality is attracted to specific genders (regardless of sex), and pansexuality is attraction to all genders (regardless of sex), yes?
  
  And also, +Rep to you.
• Guyverunit4 wrote on 2011-12-26 19:15
  Why labels at all?
  
  Pansexual just sounds like a fancier way to say bisexual to me..
• animeshadows wrote on 2011-12-26 19:19

  Quote from Guyverunit4;707198:

  Why labels at all?
  
  Pansexual just sounds like a fancier way to say bisexual to me..

  
  
  One who is pansexual is bisexual, but one who is bisexual is not necessarily pansexual.. that's why there is a difference. This thread was me trying to figure out just what.
• Conor wrote on 2011-12-26 19:29

  Quote from animeshadows;707177:

  So then it is safe to say that bisexuality is attracted to specific genders (regardless of sex), and pansexuality is attraction to all genders (regardless of sex), yes?
  
  And also, +Rep to you.

  
  
  I would say yes, since most bisexuals that I've met are attracted to male or females that display certain genders that they find attractive for that sex. (this was rly awkward to word, idk if it says exactly what i meant, but owell ppl can infer I guess.)
  [SIZE="1"]and thanks for the repxoxoxo[/SIZE]
• Zeo wrote on 2011-12-26 19:33
  Pansexual also can mean you're attracted to the personality.
  
  I'm myself little of pansexual and full homosexual at same time... So... I'm attracted to BOTH the guy's looks and personality. xD
• Guyverunit4 wrote on 2011-12-26 19:33

  Quote from animeshadows;707203:

  One who is pansexual is bisexual, but one who is bisexual is not necessarily pansexual.. that's why there is a difference. This thread was me trying to figure out just what.

  
  
  Doesn't seem like there's much of a difference at all. People like to give extra labels to things so they can call themselves something other than the norm, then give it a twist so it sounds different, but isn't really. Or at least that's what I think.
• animeshadows wrote on 2011-12-26 19:39

  Quote from Guyverunit4;707219:

  Doesn't seem like there's much of a difference at all. People like to give extra labels to things so they can call themselves something other than the norm, then give it a twist so it sounds different, but isn't really. Or at least that's what I think.

  
  
  You're essentially saying here that we call a square a square, because it sounds different. Therefore, from now on, all squares should be referred to as rectangles because of the small differences between them.
• Micho wrote on 2011-12-26 19:48

  Quote from Guyverunit4;707219:

  Doesn't seem like there's much of a difference at all. People like to give extra labels to things so they can call themselves something other than the norm, then give it a twist so it sounds different, but isn't really. Or at least that's what I think.

  
  
  Once again, sexuality has a vast spectrum one cannot just be simply homosexual, or heterosexual. It's not just black and white, just like most things in this world. These labels that we give ourselves and others only give us a small peek at our sexuality, this is why new labels for sexuality are still being produced, like pansexuality. It's not to make us look cool or unique it's just a better label for some people to label themselves with.
• Guyverunit4 wrote on 2011-12-26 19:54
  Bah too confusing. They're synonyms, that's my peace.
• Loret wrote on 2011-12-26 20:06
  When I first heard the term "Pansexual", it confused the heck out of me. A friend of a friend of mine claimed to be pansexual, what with her girlfriend and all, but in the end there's really only a girl dating another girl. I honestly think with the gay rights craze, people are over complicating things just for the sake of calling themselves other names (Like how Guyver said before). Sex and gender are the same, because once you simplify things it's either you have a dick, a vagina, or in rare cases both, and in the end you either like one or both. By saying you're bisexual, it basically encompasses all the genders, which is why I don't see the point to pansexuality. Everything has a sex, so if you encompass everything with one term then why add another? Sure, you like them for their personality and not what's in their pants. So? That's pretty much what what everyone else does (cept for those hookers out there, but that's a different kind of relationship).
  
  The act of labeling someone's sexuality is really unnecessary, unless you want to attract someone of unconventional gender, in which homo/bisexual suffices perfectly well. Any other reason would be simply to boast your unique sexual preferences, which honestly can't be all that different. If you want to tell people that you base your relationships on personality, well fan-tastic. That still doesn't make you special.
  
  *Left out asexuals since they're such a small part of the population, and if you're not interested at all in the first place then what's the point of getting into the specifics.
  
  

  Quote from animeshadows;707228:

  You're essentially saying here that we call a square a square, because it sounds different. Therefore, from now on, all squares should be referred to as rectangles because of the small differences between them.

  
  The only difference here is that squares have a much larger part to play in math, such as a number squared. You can't rectangle that number, because the dimensions with rectangles can vary infinitely, while squares remain consistent in their ratio. But that's just my inner math geek blabing.