OP: uh, pan-curious?

> When I first heard about pansexuality, I was amazed at how much similarity I found between the description and how I viewed sex. I know I prefer girls, but at the same time the idea of having sex with a guy doesn't sound as 'not right' as I imagine it should for a straight man. Point of fact, if a guy I was familiar with made a move either romantically or sexually, I would probably consider it (depending on who the guy is, of course).

How do you differentiate this from bisexuality?

> Now, seeing as I'm not only a virgin with sex but with intimate relationships, I'm very wary about saying I'm this or that, but I can't ignore how...accurate that description of pansexuality was.

Put another way, what is your interpretation of the definition?

An inquisitive mind wants to know....

dancingdoc2

Posted: 30 Sep 06:50

I'm with DancingDoc. How is "pansexuality" different from "bisexuality"?

I will agree with your view that as of yet you are neither fish nor fowl, I'd hold off on labeling myself anything. With your description, I'd say all options are still open. Without having been intimate with either a man or a woman, then you really can't say as to what your feelings will be. It does sound like you are openminded and that's not a bad thing to be. Just be honest with any future partners and see how things go.

oberon

Posted: 30 Sep 06:50

Well, as far as I can tell, the difference between pansexuality and bisexuality is a little abstract. They share an interest in both sexes sexually, but with pansexuality it's less like a desire for both, and more of a 'well, I'd prefer this, but I wouldn't say no to that either' thing. And I'm fairly certain bisexuals are similar to that, but lean more towards actually wanting both.

So I guess (again, as far as I can tell) the difference would be that while bisexuals are attracted to both genders, pansexuals aren't necessarily attracted to both, but wouldn't say no to the idea based solely on gender roles.

For example, I wouldn't necessarily go after a guy for sex or a relationship, but if I had that option made available to me (i.e. a guy asked me out), I wouldn't reject it solely because I'm a guy and he's a guy, or because I prefer women. If I had to choose between a man and a woman, I'd probably go for the woman, but if it was between a man and nothing, I would consider it a viable option (depending on the guy, as I probably said before).

I'm not really as informed on the topic as I could be, but from what I understand that is the main difference. If I'm wrong, and you can back up what you're saying, please feel free - that's why I started this topic, after all. I could use the input.

Also, sorry I wasn't clearer earlier.:o

Falcos

Posted: 30 Sep 06:50

I believe you have good clarity for the definition of the term. It has been years since I've even thought about it so had to go back and do some reading. My book presents it in an overall artsy fashion in that this orientation also includes the periphery of people who are trans gender, trans sexual, cross dresser, intersex, etc.

Do not bother looking for an understandable definition on the Internet unless you are an expert at deciphering "legalese" jargon. The explanations are so precisely worded that they seem convoluted and so much jibberish.

dancingdoc2

Posted: 30 Sep 06:50

When you try to "label" sexuality, things can get very confusing. I personally don't see the need to label it at all. For the sake of explaining to others who I am and what I identify as, I say that I am straight. Does that mean that I am 100% attracted to men, and only men? No. I choose to use that label because 1. I am currently in a relationship with a man, and 2. I know that I will always only seek out romantic relationships with a man. So for the sake of the general public, no one will probably ever question me when I say I am straight. For me, I consider sexuality to lie in who you would choose to spend the rest of your life with, who you want to be romantically involved with. Not just a purely sexual thing. So, if all went according to plan, a "straight" person would be romantically involved with a person of the opposite sex, a "gay" person would be in a romantic relationship with a person of the same sex, and a "bi" person would have romantic relationships with both sexes. Of course the spectrum is broader than that, but this is how I choose to identify myself according to my own standards.

Have I ever had sex with a woman? No. Would I do it if the opportunity was presented me? Yes, probably. Do I go out and actively seek other women to have sex with? Not at all. I like watching lesbian porn, I like going to strip clubs and watching other females dance, I have had dreams about having sex with women and I have found the occasional woman I come across in public to be physically attractive. I can appreciate the female body. However, all that said, I don't wish to be involved in a relationship with a woman. I think of it in purely sexual terms. I also am extremely attracted to men, moreso than women, and I crave sex with a man at all times. Whereas I would only "crave" or fantasize about sex with a woman very occasionally. In a spectrum, I'd say I want men 95% of the time, and women 5% of the time.

But you can see how this would get confusing. We assume that someone who is straight has a ratio of 100/0 when it comes to liking the opposite sex, and that someone who is gay would be 0/100, and someone who is bi would be 50/50. Truthfully people have so many different sexual preferences and desires that it seems awkward to try to confine it into a label, or a percentage of desires. The best thing to do for yourself and for others, IMO, is to keep an open mind. Be open to experimenting (provided it does not hurt you or others), be open to your feelings and don't close yourself off just because you are worried about fitting into a specific label of what you should be.

More than trying to label myself, I would just say that I am open to experimenting when it comes to sex.

katiebug

Posted: 30 Sep 06:51

I can see what Katie's saying, and philosophically I appreciate the whole 'why label?' concept, but I still would like to know. Katie, your description of how you view your own gender is close to, but not exactly like my own - I would pursue a hetero relationship before going after a guy, but the idea of having a relationship, either sexual or romantic, with someone of my gender doesn't raise any red flags in my head. I'm more comfortable talking with women and initiating contact with women, but if Mrs. Right turned out to be a Mr. and he approached me, I'd go for it. Of course this is all on paper. As that hasn't happened to me, I don't know how I'd react if it actually happened.

This isn't really a life-changing decision for me right now, but I am very curious about this. While I appreciate Katie's help, I could still use more input.

Falcos

Posted: 30 Sep 06:51

I think the line that DancingDoc quoted was interesting... it went something like... "if a guy made a move on me romantically or sexually...."

I think the kicker is "romantically". Falcos, if you meant that, then it sounds more like bisexuality to me. But hey, that's just MY definition. Personally, I think sexuality has a much broader range than most people know or will admit. My scale goes something like:

10% Completely Heterosexual
10% Completely Homosexual
80% Bisexual

The 80% has a VERY broad range... from people who would try one or the other if given the opportunity to people who really are true bisexuals that view either sex equally both romantically and sexually.

However, I will state again that this is just MY opinion based on my observation. I don't have statistics to base any of this on. I don't believe that you can have true statistics on sexuality as long as some are discrimnated against.

oberon

Posted: 30 Sep 06:51

Labels, all labels do more harm than good. People chase their own tails endlessly trying to pigeon hole what they are, where they fit, blah blah blah. Why? I can understand the desire for people to expand the nuance past "A, B & C" categories. I'm not sure "pan sexuality" does that very well, but there's certainly room for exploration beyond a clinical "You're gay / straight / bi" finality. Had one fleeting moment of desire with a member of your own sex but never again? Sorry, matie - that makes you bi, end of story. Had nothing but same sex liaisons in your youth but then found a woman you fell in love with, got married and never had any real desire to have another gay dalliance? Yup, bi . . . but now leading a heterosexual existence. From a definition standpoint it's correct, but it doesn't mean that's who you are. I don't know how many times I've heard people who've had one same sex experience give the "Well technically I'm bi, but I'd never do it again" line. They almost wince when they come to the "bi" part. Obviously they don't identify with the common perception of that term but feel they have to own it.

The problems aren't so much the labels, but the importance people put in them. If "Pan Sexual" seems truer and speaks to you, Go fer it. Define yourself . . . . don't let the labels (or other people) do it for you.

DVDBear

Posted: 30 Sep 06:52