Flexibility and rigidity of the norm

[Debater Slayer]

There's no difference between bisexuality and pansexuality, really. The latter is just the more political label of the two. You either like people with penises or vaginas, or both.

Most men are definitely not bisexual.

I know people who are only attracted to cisgender individuals, so I believe there's a difference between the two labels. Since some people's attraction (both romantic and sexual) depends on gender and not just biological sex, I find it useful that "pansexual" and "bisexual" are separate labels.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not sure about the title, incidentally. I never thought of my sexuality as a 'flexibility vs rigidity' consideration.

Same. For me, it just is. It's not something I bend or change at will.

 

[syo]

I don't date.

 

[JustGeorge]

I don't date.

Well, with five husbands, where would you find time!

 

[syo]

Well, with five husbands, where would you find time!

Hehe!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I know people who are only attracted to cisgender individuals, so I believe there's a difference between the two labels. Since some people's attraction (both romantic and sexual) depends on gender and not just biological sex, I find it useful that "pansexual" and "bisexual" are separate labels.

They still like both penises and vaginas. It's the same thing as bisexuality. Just like you're only "queer" if there's a homo component to your sexuality, so it's really much the same as "gay" in common lingo, making it redundant in LGBTQ. Those terms are really only used by people with certain political leanings.

 

[Debater Slayer]

They still like both penises and vaginas. It's the same thing as bisexuality.

In terms of physical features, yes, but as I said, some people are just not attracted at all to anyone who is not cisgender. If someone is attracted to non-binary people of both sexes, for example, the label "pansexual" adds nuance that "bisexual" doesn't provide.

I didn't realize why the distinction existed at first, but multiple people within LGBT circles told me that the labels could be quite useful for delineating such differences when looking for a partner in their communities. I just use whichever label someone assigns themselves and don't focus much on it in either case.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In terms of physical features, yes, but as I said, some people are just not attracted at all to anyone who is not cisgender. If someone is attracted to non-binary people of both sexes, for example, the label "pansexual" adds nuance that "bisexual" doesn't provide.

I didn't realize why the distinction existed at first, but multiple people within LGBT circles told me that the labels could be quite useful for delineating such differences when looking for a partner in their communities. I just use whichever label someone assigns themselves and don't focus much on it in either case.

Those people still have a penis or a vagina. I really don't understand how you're not getting this. You can call yourself literally whatever, and many people do. You still have an innie or an outie (or had one). So it's just a form of bisexuality. But if you're into such niche things, I suppose you would have to come up with a specific label. But "pansexual" was confusing and the butt of jokes from the beginning. I used to call myself that at one point, but realized there's no real different between that and "bisexual". I went through the same thing with "queer".

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Those people still have a penis or a vagina. I really don't understand how you're not getting this. You can call yourself literally whatever, and many people do. You still have an innie or an outie (or had one). So it's just a form of bisexuality. But if you're into such niche things, I suppose you would have to come up with a specific label. But "pansexual" was confusing and the butt of jokes from the beginning. I used to call myself that at one point, but realized there's no real different between that and "bisexual". I went through the same thing with "queer".

I understand you may not feel the need for it. However, in some circles, it's almost like nuance is expected. So, I'd say it depends on the group. If one wants to call themselves bisexual instead of pan for being open to all genders, and think they can be understood in that group - I don't really see the problem, myself. But, I also prefer the term pan for myself. That's not to say I wouldn't say bi if I was in a group in which all or most agreed it should be called bi, however.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Those people still have a penis or a vagina. I really don't understand how you're not getting this. You can call yourself literally whatever, and many people do. You still have an innie or an outie (or had one). So it's just a form of bisexuality. But if you're into such niche things, I suppose you would have to come up with a specific label. But "pansexual" was confusing and the butt of jokes from the beginning. I used to call myself that at one point, but realized there's no real different between that and "bisexual". I went through the same thing with "queer".

I do believe that strictly in terms of biological sex, pansexuality and bisexuality are synonymous, but what I mean is that "pansexual" adds nuance concerning attraction regardless of gender that "bisexual" doesn't necessarily have.

I'm assuming that the distinction may be more pronounced in communities where there's a prevalent convention to use "bisexual" when gender is still a factor in one's attraction to others and "pansexual" when it isn't. If there's no universal agreement on how the terms are used, I think that could make the distinction between them less clear.

 

[Secret Chief]

If I was single again, I'd remain single. Attractions of any kind not involved.

 

[John53]

Would you ever date someone of the opposite gender to your usual preference?

For example, if you normally date women, would you consider dating a man? Or if you normally date men, would you consider dating a woman?

My own answer is that I tend to prefer women, but that there are also a lot of guys who I wouldn't have a problem with dating.

I'm only attracted to women so my answer would be no. However if I were ever to become single again I might consider some kind of platonic relationship with a man. I'm a massive introvert but I don't want to live alone (if that even makes sense).

 

[JustGeorge]

I'm only attracted to women so my answer would be no. However if I were ever to become single again I might consider some kind of platonic relationship with a man. I'm a massive introvert but I don't want to live alone (if that even makes sense).

I understand. Before I married, I about bought a house with a woman. We functioned like a couple, but there was no sexual or romantic interest between us(she had a very active sex life otherwise, men typically). We just got on well, and neither of us wanted to live alone. I did have my oldest son, but I still wanted another adult around.

 

[wellwisher]

Would you ever date someone of the opposite gender to your usual preference?

For example, if you normally date women, would you consider dating a man? Or if you normally date men, would you consider dating a woman?

My own answer is that I tend to prefer women, but that there are also a lot of guys who I wouldn't have a problem with dating.

I have an instinctive attraction toward women; especially pretty ones. However, most of my closest friends have been men. This is because I have no physical attraction toward men, therefore, I can be myself. With women, the attraction causes me to self censor and/or wear a mask, to fulfill my attraction. With men since that attraction is not there, I can be myself and more spontaneous, without fear of lost opportunity.

I am more about the inner self, than my ego, and avoid modern subjective confusion, by allowing my inner self to send cues, ahead of group fad for the ego.

I have been close friends with many women, but that is usually because the woman is up front and tells me sex if off the table. This allows me to be myself and often allows more intimate friendships. Men friends tend to poke fun, if you get too sensitive and open, while women like the intimacy. This can then cause desire and spoil the friendship. I also had female friends who would want to take care of me; inner child.

I often go long spells, being celibate; reducing my desire, so I can have more friends and less games.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The title is admittedly a little bit difficult to read.

It was talking about the "flexibility" or "rigidity" of your norm.

Which seems to be a hard thing to interpret. It fits how I worded the OP, but it's almost like people might have been able to process my OP better if I just simply asked if they were bisexual, rather than framing it the more complex way I did.

Ahh...got ya.
I think it's okay, but it's also easy to frame as a little judgey. As a white middle aged, middle class male, I'm getting a touch more sensitive to judgement. (Mostly J/k)

Plenty of stuff I can be judged on, but yeah...

So, I'm reading this now as 'rigidity' being the opposite of 'fluidity'. I wouldn't necessarily see bisexual as a fluid position though. Although the term and it's usage has certainly developed over time, so who knows!!?

But, yes...in that sense my sexual identity appears to be pretty fixed.

 

[Erebus]

I haven't been romantically attracted to anybody, no matter their gender, in quite a long time. I don't date at all anymore and have no desire to start doing it again.

In terms of physical attraction, I can recognise handsomeness in men but I'm not attracted to them. I can be physically attracted to women, though apparently not to the same extent as some of my friends.

 

[JustGeorge]

In terms of physical attraction, I can recognise handsomeness in men but I'm not attracted to them. I can be physically attracted to women, though apparently not to the same extent as some of my friends.

I wonder why people are attracted to what they are(putting gender aside, and focusing on physical features). I, too, can identify women who many others find attractive, even though I'm not attracted myself. However, the same goes for men. I can identify men that most others find attractive, but I'm seldom attracted to them.

However, if I am attracted to someone physically(personality not coming into play), they're often not the type of man that many are attracted to, yet I am. Why?

The whole "survival of the species" thing seems nonsense... I'm not attracted to strong looking men. So, why do I(or anyone else) like what they like?

 

[Erebus]

I wonder why people are attracted to what they are(putting gender aside, and focusing on physical features). I, too, can identify women who many others find attractive, even though I'm not attracted myself. However, the same goes for men. I can identify men that most others find attractive, but I'm seldom attracted to them.

However, if I am attracted to someone physically(personality not coming into play), they're often not the type of man that many are attracted to, yet I am. Why?

The whole "survival of the species" thing seems nonsense... I'm not attracted to strong looking men. So, why do I(or anyone else) like what they like?

It's a good question, though not one I'm well qualified to answer unfortunately! I'd certainly be interested in hearing from anybody with some experience studying this topic.

I'm at least aware that what's perceived as beautiful is somewhat determined by culture though. We're exposed to our society's general consensus of beauty from quite a young age through films, adverts, magazines/newspapers and so on. Which physical characteristics and accessories count as beautiful will vary depending on the location and time period. In that respect at least, aesthetic preference isn't solely a result of our biology.

As for why people have different tastes even within a given society... I honestly couldn't say.