Talk:Polysexuality/Archive 1

Old discussion
Polysexual unfortunately has another common meaning, one interested or practicing open relationships, as contrasted to polyamory or polyfidelity (closed intimate relationships involving more than 2 adults). Pansexual has been incorrectly characterized as meaning, willing to be intimate with anything or anyone, just as bisexual has been re-defined by some to be mandating a gender binary. This article seems to be original research or statement, which is not consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. -Anon April 2010

Polysexuality is not the sexual attraction to parrots, I thought we should all get that out there in the public arena. Keep it real on the streets, Frederick Q Ansolm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.128.234 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This piece seems a bit strange: " It is my opinion that, the increase of opportunity related to the Internet must have increased the number of people who have experimented with polysexuality"

"My opinion"? Wikipedia should expose facts not opinions. i wish that this site could only have facts not fakes

Agreed... this article is clearly not written from NPOV. This is a common problem with sexuality-related articles. Unfortunately, I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough on the topic to make the changes. Is there a template for this? Arkaaito (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be merged with the article for Pansexuality anyway? 70.22.250.122 (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Polysexuality is distinct from pansexuality, as asserted in the first section of the article, and therefore I disagree that these articles should be merged.

On a related note, why is there a definition for pansexuality on this page? The content of the definition mostly fits for polysexuality too, but having a definition for pansexuality on an article for polysexuality is confusing.

I propose replacing/updating the 'As attraction to multiple genders' section as soon as a suitable definition for polysexuality can be cited. This will makes that section more accurate & less confused. Kathleen Bright (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO both this article and the pansexuality article are "stubs" and moreover aren't very likely to become large articles in their own right. Given that scenario, my inclination would be to say that they should be merged, possibly under a new heading like "alternative sexuality" (which currently is a redirect to "human sexuality").

Although even the human sexuality article is short enough that I'm inclined to say these should both be included there, along side the information about heterosexuality and homosexuality... and really, what better place to discuss the question of gender and sexual identity binaries and their related controversies than in the human sexuality article? And then maybe we can start working on a timeline that identifies when (and maybe even by whom) various sexual identity distinctions have been coined.

But on the other hand unfortunately the talk page for pansexuality actually has a LOT more content than the actual article and although it was labelled as being part of the LGBT studies project and earmarked for the cleanup taskforce, there's been no activity on the taskforce page since 2007. Maybe the "sexual identity" article would be a better candidate.

So long story short, I do think the content should be rolled into a broader article to give it more context, but I'm not sure about the direction those changes should make myself, so I'm hesitant to just cut a swath through several articles without some consensus. ike (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to what the alleged difference is between pansexuality and polysexuality - the articles don't seem to make it clear. If they are the same, just some people prefer one term or the other, maybe they should be merged? Orlando098 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pansexuality is the "sexual orientation" for people who are bisexual but also desperately want to feel special and different. But then that started to be too well-known, so all the hipsters came up with something more obscure, i.e., Polysexuality. --71.245.115.139 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question pansexuality, bisexuality, and polysexuality are completely difference. Pansexual is the attraction to anyone regardless of gender identity. Polysexual is many genders but not all i.e. all genders but cis male. Bisexuality is from what I can tell both attraction to your gender and another but not necessarily two. i.e. both males and females. Orlando098 Vexthesmol (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Tucker? Storr? do you have bibliographic info for refs?
The article cites a work by Storr and a work by Tucker but without enough information for us to find it. Could you please add the missing information? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Same remark. Those references as they are now are useless :-/ --Eunostos (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

'necessarily'
'''"Polysexuality encompases many, but not necessarily all, sexualities." ''' Ok so the article says this. "But not necessarily all" - if there are all, it should be pansexuality, right? I think the word 'necessarily' is redundant and incorrect in this specific sentence. 176.109.57.119 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Article in French
Thanks for the article. I've made the french version: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysexualit%C3%A9

Blaujacket (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Distinction?
Since it seems to be a reason of importance and not discussed thoroughly in the article I think we should address the differences between pansexuality, bisexuality, and polysexuality as well as an alternative term for polysexual which is ply as to not get confused with polyamorous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexthesmol (talk • contribs) 04:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ,  I see that you are a WP:Student editor. I don't know what you or others have planned for this article, but I will state the following: When it comes to WP:Reliable sources, there is not much to state about this topic. Polysexuality is commonly characterized as a subset of bisexuality, just like pansexuality is commonly characterized as such. And, as you've seen, the article does distinguish between the terms/concepts. For this article, if you add good content that is reliably sourced, I won't revert you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I struck through part of my above post because, with a closer examination of your contribution history, I see that you are not a WP:Student editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs Citation
There is currently a needs citation marker in the second paragraph under Scope and cultural aspects. I am unsure why that particular claim needs citation. It appears that it was added by the same person that added the claim, when it looked like this. Does this claim still need to be cited?--Ariadne (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

really not a great article
Though not long, I could easily have a score of needs citation tags here, or maybe just a BIG one at the top. For instance, it's unacceptable to make a series of statements, toss in a citation at some point, then expect that the source is adequate coverage — there'd at least have to be some "according to" or "the authors also say" notation. For instance, Polysexual identity is related to gender identity and is used by some people who identify outside the binarist gender spectrum. Who ARE these "some people" and how are they objectively identified and how do they determine that they fit this role?

And seeing as "polysexuality" is not only a provocative term but quite recent, what is its provenance? What is its known first use in publication? Who coined it? Who first defined it? Lacking such simple backgrounding, I am prone to consider that it's a hobbyhorse, an expression of someone's pet theory, OED be damned. As WP is supposedly an encyclopedia, then all the highfalutin' content means little without some basic historical context. Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Upon rereading, I still don't get it. Either
 * pansexuality, which is attraction to all genders and sexes. Polysexuality is sexual attraction to many, but not all, genders.
 * is utter bullsh!t, or it needs to be explained MUCH better. The first part appears to be the equivalent to
 * You can't trust bisexuals because they'll f@ck anything.
 * which is sort of THE classic example of biphobia, setting pansexuality off as the straw man so that polysexuality can seem somehow more pure or righteous by comparison. (And FWIW, "I am attracted to women" is not at all equivalent to "I am constantly lusting after every woman I see or even imagine.") Those who wish to claim polysexuality are free to discriminate against individuals who fall into their off-limits category, but to be in Wikipedia THE BASIS NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED, clearly and succinctly and properly sourced (and preferably with good clear examples).


 * Increasingly, I suspect citogenesis. Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
YogeshPatwariYP, regarding this, this and this, I do not see that the first bit is about polysexuality. It just seemed like rambling; so I removed it. Regarding that or the rest anyway, you should be citing the references directly. You should not be pointing readers and editors to a reference that only grants access to teachers and students in the form of signing in. Pointing to ProQuest as though it is the publisher is not sufficient. Also see MOS:PERSON. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)