Sexualities? (Serious Discussion)

[Guest hilaryfan80]

Hm, this is a topic that has been on my mind lately. I guess this is more of a response to this topic:

Anyways, what's been on my mind is that I saw a few people say "pansexual" as their response to that topic. Before you think of anything, I am trying to get some kind of clarification and a serious discussion on this topic. This is, in no way, negatively charged or anything - I am legitimately asking questions in a respectful manner. I know SBC is fully capable of making this happen, so let's not have a repeat of the feminism topic....

In the past, I've heard a few sexualities that I have never heard of before: pansexual, demisexual, asexual. Given that I'm from Kentucky, this is completely expected. In fact, I never even heard of bisexual, the sexuality with which I identify, until around 2009, when I was 16 years old. After some careful explanations from @Cha Has Come For Your Pickle and @Mermaid Magic, I now understand asexuality as a lack of libido which may or may not also have a lack of romance (which is separate: aromanticism); however, pansexuality and demisexuality still puzzle me. In fact, it doesn't even, to me, seem like they are real. This may be a lack of understanding, which is the main reason for creating this topic, but it seems really unlikely for me.

Pansexuality, as I have been told by some LGBT friends, is when you are sexually attracted to anyone of any gender, including non-binaries and transgenders. This strongly confuses me because "transgenders" are nothing more than a person who is physically one gender but mentally a different gender. In my mind, I see this as being a normal "straight" gender. A female-to-male is strictly a male and still falls within the binary genders, if that makes sense. There is no "non-binary" aspect to transgenders. My two transgender friends agree to this statement as well, and they will correct anyone who says otherwise. Let's say that this is correct. Pansexuality would strictly be defined as "the sexual attraction to anyone regardless of gender." My Kentucky mind still doesn't make any sense of this... why isn't it "bisexuality" then? Also, can non-binary people even exist? If everyone agrees that masculinity and femininity is a social construct, then does it really need a label? Can we just say that we are a gender and agree that we do not have to fall within the social constructs set by society? It seems silly to use "non-binary" as a gender because, to me, it doesn't seem like it is a gender, rather it's a philosophy on how to live (don't follow the normal social structures in society). If this is also correct, meaning transgenders are binary and that non-binary does not exist as a gender, then does pansexuality even exist (rather, is it just bisexuality)? You can see where I am confused. Please help!

Demisexuality was also explained as being the sexual attraction to personalities. This one I can understand a little more, but I still do not completely understand it. Demisexuality seems more like a hybrid between sexuality and romance. It seems a little contradicting to say that there is a difference between asexuality (sexual desire) and aromanticism (romantic desire) but then have an entire sexuality based on romanticism. It doesn't fit asexuality's standards at all.... If someone is to say that they are only sexually attracted to someone after they have been romantically interested and got to know the person a little bit, then doesn't that just mean that you have very little libido instead of being an entirely different sexuality? Also, demisexuality doesn't specify a person's gender, so it makes me believe that it's not even a true sexuality, rather a philosophy once again (don't have sex with someone until you know them). Again, I'm confused and please help if you know a little more about the subject.

Feel free to comment on anything. This is an open discussion!

And remember this rule:

Spoiler

Sexist, agist, racist, harassment of a user’s religion, race, opinions, orientation, or homophobic language, jokes about rape, or language that directly targets or attacks a person or group is not permitted; immediate week suspension

 

[kylie]

I tend to think of bisexual and pansexual as interchangeable, as nearly every explanation of it chalks up to 'well pansexuals like all genders.' Except so do bisexuals because... there's two genders. What a crazy concept. Until non-binary/genderfluid/genderqueer etc. have legitimate scientific backing, I'll continue to doubt their existence. That isn't to say I don't respect pansexuals, but as a sexuality, I have a hard time buying it.

Demisexual barely qualifies as a sexuality. Same thing with polysexual, sapiosexual, or any of this shit.

 

[TJ]

Speaking on 'Demisexuality', I think Demisexuals are considered to be on the asexual spectrum, but not quite asexual. Sexuality exists on a spectrum, and so does asexuality.  Many demisexuals are only attracted to a handful of people in their lifetimes, or even just one person, which is why they are considered part of the asexual community. What makes them different from asexuals is that they are capable of feeling sexual attraction, it’s just that it only happens after they form a deep emotional bond with someone.

[Guest hilaryfan80]

10 minutes ago, teenj12 said:

Speaking on 'Demisexuality', I think Demisexuals are considered to be on the asexual spectrum, but not quite asexual. Sexuality exists on a spectrum, and so does asexuality.  Many demisexuals are only attracted to a handful of people in their lifetimes, or even just one person, which is why they are considered part of the asexual community. What makes them different from asexuals is that they are capable of feeling sexual attraction, it’s just that it only happens after they form a deep emotional bond with someone.

That's the thing.... I don't see it as a spectrum. I may be wrong, so please don't take it personally and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that "non-binary" exists. If that's true, then there's only four possible choices: you like men, women, men and women, or none at all. In this strict view, then there's no such thing as "slightly interested with a deep emotional bond." I mean, it's possible to not have a drive (libido) or a very weak one, but I don't think that's a "sexuality" really. Even when you're only turned on by a deep emotional bond, you are still sexually attracted to a gender. It seems like to me that "demisexuality" is more of a gauge of sexual drive rather than the actual attachment itself, the whole purpose of sexualities.

[TJ]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Dr. Professor Patrick said:

That's the thing.... I don't see it as a spectrum. I may be wrong, so please don't take it personally and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that "non-binary" exists. If that's true, then there's only four possible choices: you like men, women, men and women, or none at all

If you believe in Sexuality as a spectrum, then the way it works is 'Heterosexual' on one end and 'Homosexual' on the other. Other places along the spectrum indicate how strong that attraction is. For people who identify as Bisexual, a lot of them can feel attracted to both genders equally, feel attraction to one gender more than the other, or be attracted to one gender and only feel slight attraction toward the other.

 

7 minutes ago, Mr. Dr. Professor Patrick said:

In this strict view, then there's no such thing as "slightly interested with a deep emotional bond." I mean, it's possible to not have a drive (libido) or a very weak one, but I don't think that's a "sexuality" really. Even when you're only turned on by a deep emotional bond, you are still sexually attracted to a gender. It seems like to me that "demisexuality" is more of a gauge of sexual drive rather than the actual attachment itself, the whole purpose of sexualities.

 

Demisexuals can have a high sex drive,  a low one, or one that changes. They just only experience this once an emotional bond is made with a certain person. Like you said, Asexuals lack a libido, meaning they can be interested in dating and romance, but sex does nothing for them. That's the fundamental distinction.

But both exist at different ends of the Asexuality spectrum.

If you don't particularly believe in Sexuality, Asexuality, and Gender as spectrum's (as you said), I can see how this might be confusing.

 

[Sweat]

I feel like the difference between bisexual and pansexual is that "pansexual" tends to not focus on gender, at least binary gender, when they're attracted to someone whole bisexual people do. To me, it goes like this:

Bisexual: "I'm attracted to both genders."
Pansexual: "I'm attracted to humans regardless of gender."

That's just sorta how I see it. I'm pretty 50/50 on if non-binary exists or not, though. As far as I know, it mostly depends on if you see sex and gender are directly related or not. It's tough to disrespect either side, since there are perfectly fine arguments on both sides if gender is binary or a spectrum. Personally, I feel like it'd be better to just remove gender labels in society rather than creating even more.

[Elastic Dawg]

I'd like to think wherever there's a hole, it can be filled.

[kylie]

2 hours ago, Halibut said:

I feel like the difference between bisexual and pansexual is that "pansexual" tends to not focus on gender, at least binary gender, when they're attracted to someone whole bisexual people do. To me, it goes like this:

Bisexual: "I'm attracted to both genders."
Pansexual: "I'm attracted to humans regardless of gender."

That's just sorta how I see it. I'm pretty 50/50 on if non-binary exists or not, though. As far as I know, it mostly depends on if you see sex and gender are directly related or not. It's tough to disrespect either side, since there are perfectly fine arguments on both sides if gender is binary or a spectrum. Personally, I feel like it'd be better to just remove gender labels in society rather than creating even more.

I see what you mean this, but ultimately I think the concepts are too similar. Both of those ideas ultimately chalk up to "I like both genders.' If gender doesn't matter to you... it's kind of the same thing as being bisexual. 

[Metal Snake]

The definition of 'pansexual' I found that cleared up the confusion for me was "exhibiting many forms of sexual expression". You can be sexually attracted to all sorts of things, it's not just men and women that a very small minority of people are attracted to. Let's just leave it at that.

[Young Nug]

probably going to be absolutely destroyed for this 

I feel like some of these labels are just excessive at this point. I feel like as time goes on social issues like these are being pushed into a confusing sliding scale where there's no sort of distinction between anything and nothing means everything and vice-versa. Like this.

5 hours ago, Halibut said:

Bisexual: "I'm attracted to both genders."
Pansexual: "I'm attracted to humans regardless of gender."

This is so similar that I'm not sure why there's a distinction at all. They boil down to the same general idea to me to such a point that it feels like an argument of semantics as to why there is a separate term... Which is how I feel about a lot of the deeper end of this stuff. This idea is real, as in it's really just a lifestyle where you don't really care either way. People is people. "I like both genders" and "i like all humans" is... It's the same thing. Transgender people are still a gender, and the whole genderfluid business gets into such confusing territory that I'm not totally sure it's really a thing. I just feel like a lot of this is the jumping off point for people deciding to identify themselves as three year old children (this actually happened) and 35 year old white men and then you won't even be able to call them out on it because you're being "offensive".

I feel like I'm probably super ignorant when it comes to stuff like this, but everyone always talks about shedding labels, but then it seems like everyone is trying to give themselves a label with this stuff. Just dig who you dig. 

[kylie]

5 minutes ago, Bada Bing Nuggets said:

I feel like some of these labels are just excessive at this point. I feel like as time goes on social issues like these are being pushed into a confusing sliding scale where there's no sort of distinction between anything and nothing means everything and vice-versa. Like this.

This is so similar that I'm not sure why there's a distinction at all. They boil down to the same general idea to me to such a point that it feels like an argument of semantics as to why there is a separate term... Which is how I feel about a lot of the deeper end of this stuff. This idea is real, as in it's really just a lifestyle where you don't really care either way. People is people. "I like both genders" and "i like all humans" is... It's the same thing. Transgender people are still a gender, and the whole genderfluid business gets into such confusing territory that I'm not totally sure it's really a thing. I just feel like a lot of this is the jumping off point for people deciding to identify themselves as three year old children (this actually happened) and 35 year old white men and then you won't even be able to call them out on it because you're being "offensive".

I feel like I'm probably super ignorant when it comes to stuff like this, but everyone always talks about shedding labels, but then it seems like everyone is trying to give themselves a label with this stuff. Just dig who you dig. 

yesyesyes the same exact people how talk about how unnecessary and confining labels are are the people who seem pretty interested in making up a  ton of labels to describe themselves with. It seems that every obscure/irrelevant personality trait has ended up becoming a new gender/sexuality to these people. If you identify as something like non-binary or genderfluid (or any of the other genders people are trying to promote), I respect that, but I'm allowed to have doubt about their legitimacy. 

It's the same thing with sexuality. Everyones acting like theres so many different sexualities just because their experiences are different. If you have to get to know someone to be sexually attracted to them, that's not asexuality. That's not it's own sexuality. That's just...how you are. I concede to the idea that sexuality is fluid, but I don't believe we need a new name for every single point on the spectrum. 

 

[Guest hilaryfan80]

I think the problem with pansexuality is that non-binary is super hard to justify. I said earlier that almost everyone here agrees that masculinity and femininity are social constructs - they're not actually based on gender, rather what society attributes as being "manly" or "girly." Non-binaries break those social constructs by being both "masculine" and "feminine;" however, this does not necessarily imply a new gender. All it means is that they do not subscribe to the idea of the social constructs, something that, again, to which we have all agreed. We actually see this in our daily lives with the gay community. Just look at any feminine gay man and you can see that he is very comfortable with breaking the social constructs. If you asked that guy what his gender is, I would bet you money that he would say "male" and not some third gender. Again, it is very hard to justify non-binaries because it is not based on any facts or evidence; rather it is based on in the insecurities of the person who identifies with that gender. Even my brother, who is going into the field of psychology, has told me that "non-binary" genders currently do not have any scientific backing whatsoever. A quick Google search will even show you that there is no evidence. Even the one account of the native tribe that had six genders did not take it as being a "gender;" rather it was a role that was assigned at birth. Biologically, everyone was still treated as a "male" or "female." To give the area some credit, there is current work on the research of "non-binary" genders, but I doubt anyone will take them seriously until there is some evidence backing up the claim.

PSA: If you say that pansexuals are also capable of falling in love with transgendered people, then you are actually intentionally hurting transgendered people and not respecting them as a person. A transgendered person is not both genders; the person is one singular gender in which he or she identifies. Just because he or she is biologically one gender and psychologically another gender does not mean that he or she is any different than anyone else. Both of my transgendered friends agree upon this statement: they were both always a male or a female, but never both. They have permanently transitioned into a new gender. This is not the same as being "non-binary." In fact, my transgendered friends hate it when people treat them differently. They would rather date someone who identifies as "bisexual" than "pansexual" because the "bisexual" person will treat them like a normal person rather than a mistake.

[Grimmy Claus <3]

On 13/10/2016 at 9:10 PM, Mr. Dr. Professor Patrick said:

I think the problem with pansexuality is that non-binary is super hard to justify. I said earlier that almost everyone here agrees that masculinity and femininity are social constructs - they're not actually based on gender, rather what society attributes as being "manly" or "girly." Non-binaries break those social constructs by being both "masculine" and "feminine;" however, this does not necessarily imply a new gender. All it means is that they do not subscribe to the idea of the social constructs, something that, again, to which we have all agreed. We actually see this in our daily lives with the gay community. Just look at any feminine gay man and you can see that he is very comfortable with breaking the social constructs. If you asked that guy what his gender is, I would bet you money that he would say "male" and not some third gender. Again, it is very hard to justify non-binaries because it is not based on any facts or evidence; rather it is based on in the insecurities of the person who identifies with that gender. Even my brother, who is going into the field of psychology, has told me that "non-binary" genders currently do not have any scientific backing whatsoever. A quick Google search will even show you that there is no evidence. Even the one account of the native tribe that had six genders did not take it as being a "gender;" rather it was a role that was assigned at birth. Biologically, everyone was still treated as a "male" or "female." To give the area some credit, there is current work on the research of "non-binary" genders, but I doubt anyone will take them seriously until there is some evidence backing up the claim.

PSA: If you say that pansexuals are also capable of falling in love with transgendered people, then you are actually intentionally hurting transgendered people and not respecting them as a person. A transgendered person is not both genders; the person is one singular gender in which he or she identifies. Just because he or she is biologically one gender and psychologically another gender does not mean that he or she is any different than anyone else. Both of my transgendered friends agree upon this statement: they were both always a male or a female, but never both. They have permanently transitioned into a new gender. This is not the same as being "non-binary." In fact, my transgendered friends hate it when people treat them differently. They would rather date someone who identifies as "bisexual" than "pansexual" because the "bisexual" person will treat them like a normal person rather than a mistake.

That's really awful that they would be treated like a mistake and kind of a harsh judgement on your part to pansexuals. I'm sure not all pansexuals are like that and I think they should be treated as people rather than as sexualities when the distinctions are as similar as they are.

[Rebel the Wolfgirl]

5 hours ago, DiabolicalGenius2016 said:

That's really awful that they would be treated like a mistake and kind of a harsh judgement on your part to pansexuals. I'm sure not all pansexuals are like that and I think they should be treated as people rather than as sexualities when the distinctions are as similar as they are.

As a pansexual myself, I agree with this.

[Cha]

I respect people who identify as such as I do with most of these sexualities. Although science hasn't proved non-binary to be a legit thing I can still respect people who call themselves it or any of the pronouns people have connected to them. I'm in no way against them as it's a freedom of speech. 

Like hilaryfan80 said, fashion and gender roles are social constructs. Dress as you please, act as you please, etc. Hell, I'd love to live in a world where we had no genders and thus people would be more open to anyone wearing/acting like anything. But with today's America I think we can get pretty close to that with wearing what we want and not letting gender roles control us. 

And don't buy into every little thing Tumblr says just like you wouldn't with any other opinions.  

[Katniss]

I'm straight so I can't say I know too much about all these different sexualities, but I just try to be respectful of everyone and go with the flow. If people want to subscribe to certain labels, cool. If people don't want labels attached to them, also cool.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Katniss

[kylie]

I think that there are only two genders, which ultimately is why I find the idea of pansexuality questionable/illegitimate. 

[sbl]

Hey so yeah this is a pretty old thread and maybe it should be pinned or something idk

 

So as of now, I really don't know my final sexuality yet (this can all change during my development) and will probably keep it to myself until I'm in senior year high school or university. I'm pretty sure that it's heterosexual (attracted sexually and romantically to the other sex), but I might be starting to lead to hetero-romantic (hetero-romantic means romantically attracted to the opposite sex which in my case is female) bisexual, or regular gray-A. Bisexuality is being attracted to the opposite sex (in my case that's male), and gray-A(sexual) means basically I would have sexual feeling for people sometimes and not all the time. But in my opinion, I think that there's too many sexualities and gender identities, and the list that goes on forever should be compacted so people can be more informed.