Talk:Pansexuality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Spring Cleaning

Resolved

Seeing that the article ( and this talk page ) is a bit of a mess at the moment I decided I would try to reorganise/format it so that it is a bit more readable and consistent. In particular, the article currently mixes claims in the "it is the case as" and "some believe that" form rather sporadically. The format is also inconsistent throughout the page, which adds to the confusion. Please feel free to revert/edit any of the presentational changes I make if you feel content is lost. J.Ring 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

arg!

Stale

• I have no comments on that theory, other than the article (if found online) could have been linked to: [http://blah.blah/article.blah LinkName]... additionally - logging in before posting and signing your post with --~~~~; (as is the prefered practice for talk pages.)

--Sarah (Kuro) 14:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC);

Pansexuality/Bisexuality

Resolved

I would think that a better example of a pansexual is one who is attracted to transgendered people. This example would difinitively set apart Pansexuality from Bisexuality.

-- Christopher 02:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree completely, and from personal experience: I strongly identify as bisexual myself, and find FTM transmen very attractive. I am thus at the same time attracted to their maleness and to whatever of residual femaleness they may yet possess.

Nuttyskin 02:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

However, it would not be an accurate use of the term. Canaen 07:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Pansexuals can hold the possibility of loving those who do not fit gender norms, PLUS those who are in those norms. Thus why one of its alternate titles are omnisexual. It is not just transgendered people. Such a description would be misinformative. Disinclination 00:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I only knew that this word existed when I encountered it on Wiki--it surprized me how good to felt to have a word for me. However the definition freaks me out in a couple places and seems untrue to my experience. Namely, "It has also been claimed that pansexuality refers not to a metaphysical order of attraction to other human beings but rather, a more carnal attraction to sexual acts in general and irrespective of gender." This is insulting and dehumanizing--love is love, and this addition on the page makes pansexuality sound like fetishism instead of a legitimate sexuality and way of seeing the people around you. Is there are reason why it's there? As soon as someone replies to the contrary, I'll delete that paragraph myself. --132.161.154.113 20:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC) catheyla@grinnell.edu

• I agree completely with you here.--Etaras1 03:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Theory of Pansexuality

Stale

by Peter Boom

Human beings, by nature must be, "pansexual" (from the Greek, Pan = all) a complete sexual person. We all possess various sexual possibilities generally classified as heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, autoerotic, fetishist, sado-masochistic, etc. These tendencies in our nature can come out at any time, according to the development of each individual. Children are born polimorphoperverse; the curiosity of discovery leads them to play with their mothers, touch their genitals, masturbate and investigate their excretia. Later, as they develop, they play games of "doctor" as they explore the bodies and functions of their friends. All this is perfectly natural. During puberty their ambivalence is natural and undeniable as they adapt to life as an adult. Only later does their sexual proclivity become more crystallized and definite, although the range of options remain open. These options are partially repressed or are made taboo, according to the society in which they live. There's a tribe in Borneo in which the women live with their children in a huge hut, while men live apart from them. In Kenya there's a nomadic tribe of proud long-living people who have the custom of coupling boys of twelve in a ritual of blood-mixing. These male couples remain faithful to each other all their lives, wandering far off together, returning to the tribe once or twice a year in order to procreate with the women. There are many examples, like the Siwans from Africa, the Sambia in New Guinea, where nearly all males engage in both hetero- and homo-sexual intercourse, but we can leave these to the anthropologists. The term "pansexuality" exists already, but with a different meaning to that which I apply to it, indicating the concept to which sexual instinct is the basis of all human behaviour (Freud). It is important not to repress any of our pansexuality and to live it freely, using good sense. The repression and banning of natural instinct creates frustration, often resulting in antisocial and violent behaviour. Good sense is embodied in the expression: "Don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you!" Definition of pansexuality: Pansexuality includes all kinds of sexuality that can exist in a human being, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, transgender, heterosexual, tendencies that may prevail either permanently or occasionally. Peter Boom.

The word Pansexualism is explained by Professor Haeberle in his Critical Dictionary in the following way: "Pansexualism. (sometimes also "pansexuality". From gr. "pan": all) All-embracing sexual love. An attitude or a philosophy which is based on the belief that the human sexual potential can and should be directed towards everybody and everything. At one time, the term "pansexualism" was also used for the theory that all human behavior is somehow sexually motivated. This theory is no longer considered valid. Today the terms "pansexualism" and "pansexuality" are often employed by certain advocates of sexual liberation who want to convey the idea that the present sexual and gender roles of men and women are too confining, and that, therefore, an all-embracing sexuality should accept the entire spectrum of sexual orientations and deliberately ignore all other conventional distinctions."

I really don't quite see what the above does on a talk page, however, as I am a bit new on wikipedia I'll stick it in a separate section rather than removing it. J.Ring 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Resolved

• dont merge separte issue that pangender. Pangender discribes your sex and Pansexuality describes your sexuality which are differnt --Prof Jolly 12:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Canaen 07:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tough

Resolved

Hard to cite sources on a concept that mostly became vocal and organized thanks to fandom communities and furries on the internet. --70.227.187.48 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there were more contributions from other communities other than just the 'fandom' and 'furry' communities. Disinclination 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I might add that I do not think the second reference (to the Leather Online website in the "Pansexual Sex" section) is a credible source. I would like to see someone who has actually done some research on the attitudes of Pansexuals towards sexual acts. It seems to me that there could be pansexuals opposed to acts like BDSM simply for the reasons of power discrepancy, enforcement of gender roles etc... Please, something more credible. I won't remove it, but it needs to be improved, perhaps with a more detailed discussion. --Elecid 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

some major changes

Resolved

Alright, I'm gonna be making a bunch of major changes to this article, and I wanted to explain why I'm making each change so we don't end up going back and forth. I also suggest that any major additions be brought up in the discussion page either before or with the addition.

But first off, I want to explain some of the changes I made earlier. I added phrases such as "a *potential* attraction" etc. in an effort to highlight the fact that pansexuals aren't automatically attracted to anyone and everyone - only that they don't assign their romantic feelings toward any one group of gender or sex. I don't really know how to express this, but I'm basically trying to say that they're attracted to people regardless of gender or sex.

Okay, so the changes I'm about to make: some of the stuff under "social interactions and limitless comfort zones" seems odd to me. I don't see how sexuality has anything to do with politics or profession. Due to lack of references in a very 'out there' section, I think this should be deleted, at least until we have some concrete evidence.

the section on preferences is strongly worded. It should be toned down a bit, especially since there are no references.

much of "confusion with other sexualities" simply doesn't need to be there. of course pansexuals won't identify as gay. they're not gay. they're pansexuals. that's the entire point. pansexuals being mistaken as having other sexualities is not unexpected nor is it unique (gay people (for example) are often mistaken as heterosexual (for example)).

I'm not sure the Encyclopedia of Sex is a good source to list. This "Encyclopedia" doesn't have words such as "homosexual", "gay", "lesbian", and "bisexual" listed. How about listing dictionary.com? What do you guys think?

Newyorksnow 04:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "confusion with other sexualities" doesn't *need* to be there, but pansexuality is different from the other sexualities in a unque way because of its broadness - I think that section is still helpful and has a place in the definition. You personally belive as I do, that pansexuals are not gay, they're pansexuals - but there are people who may categorize them as such and this is where this section of the article becomes particularly helpful in solidifying that separate identity.

Regardless of what anyone else may think, what matters is what Pansexuals identify as; Pansexuals, not Homosexuals. I agree that a lot of the weird unsourced stuff shouldn't be there. Pansexuality, as I've always understood it, just means that you love without disriminating on the basis of gender or sex, and often age, race, and other concepts, thus the "pan" .Canaen 06:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

True, that's why that "Confusions..." part is ok. Also, its unfortunate there isn't more stuff out there to sources in the first place. Has anyone read or found any book/source about pansexuality worth mentioning? So far, if pansexuality is mentioned, its only mentioned in passing and not deeply studied in depth. --Etaras1 03:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

moved from main page

Stale

moved from article:

• • • To you who come upon this next, please revise the above text. I strongly disagree, but currently don't have the energy to revise it on my own with any intelligible locution.*** unsigned, by 143.229.183.252

Possible Citation

Resolved

Although Wikipedia asks for us to be bold in editing, I'd like to put this up. http://lauragoodwin.org/pansexual.htm Is a link to someone who, indeed pansexual, wrote an essay about the problems in their community. It reads, "Pansexuals honor all sexes and all safe-sane-consensual expressions of adult sexuality,". I was wondering if it would be possible, and correct, to use this for the citation needed in the section Pansexual Sex. Disinclination 00:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I added it.. well, awhile ago. Disinclination 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

While interesting and provokative in a positive manner I'd question the background and motivation of the author. The article is clearly focussed on BDSM play rather than sex in itself, and the author uses a definition of pansexuality that is clearly centered around people's 'kinkplay orientation' and social/scene comfortably, as opposed to their sexual orientation. This appears to conflict with both the article text and most commonly accepted defition of pansexual. --Myfanwy 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Quagmire

Stale

I was just reading the Quagmire page, the one from Family Guy, and it says he is pansexual. I disagree with this. The only two mentions of Quagmire being with someone who is not female, is when he returned from the Phillipines (when Brian was smelling him, and Quagmire insisted that the third member of their orgy was female, not male), and when he was hitting on a transsexual (whom he 'rejected' after he found out she was pre-op). This implies that, at the very least, he is not bisexual. Both instances gave off the feeling that he was frightened by being with a male, although the second example may mean he will sleep with a post-op transsexual. Also, the over all theme throughout the whole show is Quagmire getting with as many females as he can ... along with Lois. I am curious as to what you all think. Also, other mentions in his article were necrophilia, zoophilia, which I don't think would link him to pansexuality. Disinclination 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PDA

Resolved

I think that the sentence involving that pansexuals are more comfortable with PDA should be removed. I mean, it is all a matter of preference, is it not? If you think about it, it is. I mean, it all depends upon their own personal levels of public affection, and some people, while they may be as open to sexuality as pansexuality is (sorry for generalizations), they may not be as open to PDA. Just food for thought. Disinclination 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you there; in my mind PDA is an expression of personal preference, rather than a common or distinguishing factor of pansexuality. Keikat25 01:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Omnisexuality

Resolved

pansexuality and omnisexuality are different from each other, as omnisexuality would also include zoophilic, necrophilic and pedophilic desires which pansexuality clearly does not, as it is human-oriented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.95.128.194 (talk • contribs) .

I am curious to know where you got such an assumption from. Could you cite some sources, please? The reference will remain on the page until otherwise. Disinclination 00:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

there are only two genders and three combinations

Resolved

so how is pansexual different from bisexual? 67.172.61.222 05:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people don't subscribe to a binary gender viewpoint - being 'genderqueer' or 'fluid' or anything like that. Also, what about pre-op transexuals? That has a pretty clear definition between gender and physical sex. Like, someone who is bisexual will be exclusively attracted to males and females, whereas someone who's pansexual would also include those who don't fit in to one category. --Ryttu3k 07:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The current definition of pansexual in the article has made me have to re-read it several times to finally understand it (if someone could rewrite it, it would be better or give some sort of simpler summary). A pansexual does not believe one is confined by their (sometimes original) biological gender. Bisexuals, on the other hand, only alternate between two set genders, female and male. Pansexuality does not. Disinclination 07:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain that again? I still don't get it. Are pansexuals genderqueer bisexuals?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above arguments of what a pansexual is. Pansexuals are not exclusively attracted to someone's biological gender. Like Ryttu3k said, bisexuals are still based upon the male and females genders, but pansexuals do not make that distinction. Someone who is a pre-op transgender going from male to female will absolutely believe they are female, but to someone who isn't pansexual, will see them as the male sex in body and/or mind. Disinclination 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There are more than two sexes and certainly more than two genders (take Third gender, for example). Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am afraid that the world is a lot more complicated than you were brought up to think. --80.171.77.169 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pan/Omni: Limited only to sex/love attraction to men or women?

Resolved

Considering the very meaning of the word "Pansexual" or "Omnisexual" is essentially an attraction to anything that arouses love or sexual interest in someone or something, then where does the line get drawn? Doesn't that include sex or love with anyone or anything? Doesn't that include pedophiles and beastiality? And, sex with inanimate objects? If limited to men and women, then this is merely a disguise for being bi-sexual. Thoughts? Jtpaladin 18:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I keep trying to get my head around it and it just seems like a word for people who feel "bisexual" is too gay a label for them.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been explained above in the talk page. Pansexuality/Omnisexuality is a HUMAN SEXUALITY. Someone could be bisexual and a necrophiliac, just as much as someone who is heterosexual and commits bestiality (there is no A). Some people seem to a problem trying to accept that pansexuality is a human sexual orientations, not a fetish. Disinclination 20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no asexual? I don't want to sound - neologism approaching - "panphobic", but please explain what is the difference between a pansexual and a bisexual? Going from what you said before, how is it not another type of bisexual... someone who is attracted to both men and women. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-read the intro paragraphs for both Pansexuality and Bisexuality.

Pansexuality (sometimes referred to as omnisexuality[1]) is a sexual/affectional orientation characterized by a potential aesthetic attraction, romantic love and/or sexual desire for anybody, including people who do not fit into the gender binary of male/female implied by bisexual attraction. Pansexuality is sometimes described as the capacity to love a person romantically irrespective of gender. Some people who are pansexual may also assert that gender and sex are meaningless to them.

Bisexuality, and its community, still see in terms of male and female. The majority of bisexuals (as it is written in the bisexual article) says that equal male-female attraction is in the minority. And when I said there was no A, I meant that there is no 'a' in bestiality. Of course there is an asexual orientation. Disinclination 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Bisexual for whom physical appearance / gender does not matter. Check. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you win the "thinking inside the box" triathlon this year, congratulation. If you think that the term "bisexual", which implies two sexes, hence the "bi", covers a broader range of sexes, that a.) does not mean that people identifying as pansexuals (i.e. independent of human sexualities) do, and b.) strongly implies that you ought to get your linguistics straight.

No, I was trying to analogize.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If thats how you understand it, then sure. But Pansexuality/Omnisexuality stands on its own. I'm pretty sure before the term bisexual came around, you were just cIalled a "gay who swung both ways". Of course, that was before the invention of Wikipedia... Disinclination 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Until I read the word "Pansexual" in a book by Christopher Penzak on Queer Spirituality, I always called myself omni-sexual...I thought I had come up with the term and the idea myself (silly me!) I figured there might be other people like me, but had never met any, despite being around all sorts of gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer & you-name-it folks...every one else saw two sexes and three orientaions, my attraction to intersexed people, and pre- and post-op transsexuals (both MTF & FTM) was not even considered by my friends as something to talk about. I was lumped into the "Bisexual" category, but it didn't fit me. I saw beauty and sexieness in people who were not supposed to be within my capability to love since the relationship defined for a bisexual woman is either lesbian with a female partner or straight with a male partner. There is an entire spectrum of gender, orientation and biological sex, each with it's own beauty. My definition of a Pansexual is a person who has the capacity to love and want to be intimate with anyone upon that spectrum.Ceramykgoddess 08:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A hahaha

Resolved

Political correctness + really horny people = pansexual

• Thank you for your poinient and valuable addition to this article, O Anonymous. You have provided an excellent example of the ignorance and fear that all suffering and oppression stem from. (Besides, a more accurate joke might be something like peace-and-love hippies + really horny people = pansexual.) Actually, while this article is fairly decent, if someone is confused, they should try talking to someone who describes themselves as pansexual who may be able to give insight. (Not that our Anonymous friend read the article at all anyway.) 70.16.216.119 07:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pansexuality = Queer?

Could someone add to the main page a distinction between Pansexuality and Queer? Personally I understand 'Queer' to express fluidity of sexual orientation across the whole spectrum and to embrace fluidity of sexual orientation through time. So far I don't see the difference between this and Pansexuality. Bethgranter 17:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be the slang description. The actual word definines someone who is different, and no real connection to sexuality. Disinclination 00:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument. It is like saying the word 'gay' means 'happy' and has no real connection to sexuality. Google 'queer' and look at the results. Anyone else want to define the difference between the modern use of the term 'queer' and 'pansexual' please? Bethgranter 22:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. The primary definition, (Merriam-Webster[1] 1 a : WORTHLESS, COUNTERFEIT <queer money> b : QUESTIONABLE, SUSPICIOUS ) "Queer" came to be used as a derogatory term for male homosexual, which led to the secondary definition (d (1) often disparaging : HOMOSEXUAL (2) sometimes offensive : GAY 4b ) Then it was taken back, and now is used as a self-descriptor of pride in being a homosexual. (Over the past two decades, an important change has occurred in the use of queer in sense 2d. The older, strongly pejorative use has certainly not vanished, but a use by some gay people and some academics as a neutral or even positive term has established itself.)

Pansexual, nearly synonomous with omnisexual, is someone who does not prefer a gender, and is sexually attracted to all humans. This is different than queer, or homosexual, in that refers to someone who is sexually attracted only to people of the same sex. This is different than bi-sexual, as not all bi-sexuals would be attracted to transgendered folk. IMO opinion, "queer" does not, as you put it, "express fluidity of sexual orientation across the whole spectrum and to embrace fluidity of sexual orientation through time." But, then, I am only a slut, and not queer. Atom 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it was slang. But Atom is right. And next time, ask if you want the modern/slang version, or no. Thanks. :) Disinclination 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

However, perhaps a more genetic definition is required in this instance. It is the desire of the queer community to embrace everyone of "deviant" sexuality (just as long as their gender identity or sexual proclivities lie at least partially away from heterosexuality). Thus, for example, I know many gays and lesbians who also call themselves queer. That assertion would be a claim to general nonconformity in the interest of establishing a community. There is no one in these two more specific categories I have ever met who would call themselves pansexual. As such, it would seem that pansexual is used by a specific community. Furthermore, many bisexuals appreciate and acknowledge that gender makes a difference to the sexual experience or type of attraction, which is the differentiating factor in between pan and bi (it may be vague and unsatisfactory, but it is the community and not the word which provides the meaning). Attraction to transexuals is an insufficient warrant for the differentiating factor since it is a common thing for lesbians to date FTMs (which has thrown me off on several occasions when I hear 'my boyfriend' from a lesbian) and common also to hear from "straight" men that transexuals have (and I quote) "the best of both worlds," yet despite attraction, to be too afraid to seek one out. In summary, I feel it is important to speak about the way the terms are used by the people who use them rather than the *strict* lexical definitions. - Elecid

Saying that "Pansexuality" is merely associated with humans is putting a limitation on the term. Where does it say that it does not include attraction to animals or inanimate objects? Also, if we're talking about humans, remember that children are humans as well. So are dead bodies. Let's just be frank and say what being "Pansexual" really means. And that is, simply bi-sexual. Jtpaladin 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is insufficient evidence given, if animals are truely pansexual, in that a pansexual is someone who, quite simply, is not attracted to someone of a particular gender, or care what their gender is at all. Bisexuality deals with females and males. Some people do not see themselves as female, or male... or both (albeit rarely, I'd think). And what about transsexuals? This is what pansexuality is, not attracted to someone because of their biological gender. And why do you bring up paedophilia and necrophilia? Those are fetishes, not sexual orientations. Also, if you can find evidence of pansexual animals in the wild (and not just special cases), we'd gladly put it up. Disinclination 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Disinclination. It is the refusal to differentiate that defines the pan from the bi sexual. I don't think that it would be possible for an animal to be pansexual, since (although it is just my hunch) it has more to do with conditioning and it may be a more intellectual development than biological/physical. I am open to being disproved.--Elecid 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Explain this to me?

Resolved

I've read the article a few times but I think I need clarification. Is a pansexual essentially a bi person who is also attracted to inter/transexuals? Or is it a more post-modern way of saying bisexual? I sound very ignorant, but I'm not trying to be rude. Is it a subcategory of bisexual? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a person who does not mind the sex of the person at all. Yes, it does resemble bisexuality, but it is not the same. As many people have already pointed out, the difference between a bisexual person and a pansexual is the fact that bisexuals are attracted to people within the male/female binary. However, not all people identify with said binary. This may be confusing, but it is a fact that there are people who see their sexual and gender identity as fluid, or have a gender/sexual identity that is not covered by the terms "male" or "female". Pansexuals are different from bisexuals in the fact that they can love a person regardless of their sex, meaning that the people they fall in love with can be male, female, neither, third gender, transsexual, something in-between, etc. --80.171.77.169 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs clean-up and better references

Resolved

Of the two references currently in the article:

1. One is a dictionary definition
2. The second focuses primarily on a group of students at one US high school. It is a seven page article that only includes the word pansexual twice, and both times are just in a list of terms. Even this reference does not support the sentence that it follows. The sentence claims that the article was "controversial", but the reference is to the article itself. Any claim that the article created any controversy is not backed up by the reference and would seem to be the personal opinion or original research of the Wikipedian who added the statement.

Most of the claims in the article are not supported by either of the above references. The article also abounds with weasel words such as "Some say..." These need to be replaced with more definitive language stating who claims this. Because of the above problems, I am tagging the article as needing better referencing and clean-up. Johntex\^talk 02:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)