Again… Not dogging on you, because you nuanced it, but 99% of times, that definition is used to make bisexuals look shallow. The parent comment was right, there’s no good reason to have two, except that the creator wanted to feel special and unique.
No no no. Hi it’s me the parent commenter. I did not say that. There is reason to have both terms. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
That definition does exemplify my point about definitions reading as slander to bisexuals, as that definition does imply bisexuals are shallow, but that does not mean pansexuality isn’t a valid or useful term. The problem is trying to make a definition that is strict and draws a fine line between bisexuals and pansexuals. That cannot be done.
This is a grey area. Bisexuality is a diverse spectrum. The terms need to be a little fuzzy with some overlap. And that’s fine. The real world doesn’t fit neatly into the boxes we try to make for it.
Its good we have both the terms bisexual and pansexual. Its a very good thing we have words to communicate some of the many nuances that exist.
The issue becomes that we now have omnisexual, polysexual, pansexual, and bisexual.
We have labels on top of labels to describe once natural, barely labeled human behavior, millennia ago, even centuries ago in many precolonial parts of the world. In many cultures people just were who they were, they didn’t need to declare themselves as one thing to make sure that people didn’t commit the ultimate scandal: classifying them with another group. And I get that I’m being exaggerative here, and I am not ignorant to the fact that much of this behavior arises against societal violence (not only physical) from the assumed normative identity (whiteness, heterosexual, cis, etc…).
But we don’t unfuck this hegemonic society by further segregations of increasingly niche labels, while placing more weight on such labels. It is no coincidence these arise mainly from online or otherwise reclusive, isolated spaces. The death murder of third spaces, unions, community, and collective action is designed to do exactly such things.
All this to say, as I mentioned in another comment that I don’t think labels are inherently destructive, but that we have lost ourselves: as a species, as a society, as individuals. We don’t really know what healthy human behavior outside of a hegemonic, capitalist, imperial world looks like. It’s why things like anthropology are so important, but that also has so many issues that stem from the same hegemonic corruption of academia. In “losing” ourselves, we place such great importance on helpful but limited labels to close that subconscious hole of identity loss. And they start out small, but increase and become gaping. The ironic part is by now, this has so little to do specifically with bisexuality or pansexuality, and my critiques have broadened. I really am not attached to one label over another, but that doesn’t mean that I think we can just keep defining new ones to compensate.
Like someone responding to you said, it simply results in what we were always going to have to do, talk and get to know complex people. Instead of “oh there’s x person. He’s gay, but a twink not a bear, and I heard he’s problematic because x thing vs y thing…” And yes, I have heard people shove entire infinitely diverse human beings so violently into little boxes, so they “know” immediately how to judge them, pity them, hate them, etc…
Sorry this is so long. I have a lot of thoughts on this wider conversation about labels and our modernist society’s addiction to classifying everything and anything. Like you said, and Alan Watts, life isn’t boxes. As he says, there are no straight lines in nature just wibbles.
I think the problem is that identifying as pan vs bi doesn’t really communicate anything, because there’s not a meaningful consensus of what either word means in relation to the other. The definitions vary wildly depending on who’s using them, so you have to clarify either way and you may as well just explain your sexuality in more direct terms if the nuances matter.
I mean, practically, if someone tells me they’re bi or pan, it doesn’t really change my view of them. Like there’s not really any practical difference insofar as something I would need to know to treat them somehow. Like if I’m trying to flirt with someone, and if I was a man, and that person I find out is a a lesbian, then I wouldn’t. But if they’re bi or if they’re pan, it doesn’t change that.
There is a difference, I’m not saying there isn’t, and I’m not saying we should only use one if the two. I’m just saying the need for clarifying is overblown. If I’m curious why they picked one over the other, I might ask, but again, it’s not super critical for anything.
But is there really a difference, then? Both words communicate the same thing, i.e. being attracted to multiple genders. Anything beyond that is so subjective as to not really be meaningful beyond prescriptive queer discourse.
This. I feel like the more terms we create to specify the nuances of reality, the more niche labels get created to differentiate from that new word. It’s a recursive tree that betrays reality into increasingly disconnected illusion we tell ourselves is reality but isn’t.
I actually yearn for a world where labels don’t really exist the way they do now. I know that sounds crazy at first, but how beautiful a world where you can meet your friend John, and introduce him to someone, and there’s no immediate categorization of this person’s identity. It’s probably a pipe dream, I recognize that, but so many of our definitions now are defined in opposition to something else. Gay is not straight, trans is not cis, bisexual is not gay or straight, ethnic means not white (in our current context).
And it’s not like I think labels are inherently bad, but one of the sayings I try to live my life by is: methods are meant to serve us, not us serve methods. When we make once helpful tools into a false reality, we end up serving the things meant to simply aid us. I don’t know exactly how it would look, and that’s the cool part: I don’t have to, it would be a societal discourse. But to have all these competing, oppositional, binding terms simply be subsumed under personhood. Which of course demands the ending of normative culture: heteronormativity, whiteness, patriarchy, etc. As currently, those are our “normal”.
But in a just society would it be so bad to simply see a person and just let them be them? Maybe it would be, maybe I’m leaving out crucial aspects in my limited, single outlook. But man, I can dream.
Is it shallow to want to fuck someone because their hot? Isnt that literally the societal norm? The majority of interaction ive had by far are people with sexual attraction on looks that ive personally just never been able to relate too. Thats why I think there needs to be a distinction for those of us who dont feel that sexual attraction even if their aesthetic appearance is something we would be sexually atteacted too after being attracted to their personality
Although… Thinking about it that might fit under demisexual, but then you cant specify the gender, so demi-bisexual? Honestly maybe pansexual should just be the pretty name for demi-bisexual although I think others using pansexual would say its different from demi, or maybe omni would say their more demi-bisexual. Idk im definitely with you that there are too many labels, but I think sexual atteaction between physical and closeness/personality deserve to have a distinction
Again… Not dogging on you, because you nuanced it, but 99% of times, that definition is used to make bisexuals look shallow. The parent comment was right, there’s no good reason to have two, except that the creator wanted to feel special and unique.
All heterosexuals and homosexuals care about physical traits, often regarding a genitalia.
It’s not about being shallow, when 90%+(?) of the population shares that commonality.
I consider myself a panromantic, heterosexual non-binary person.
Sure personality matters a lot to me, but I can’t sexually engage with a penis. It’s just how it goes.
No no no. Hi it’s me the parent commenter. I did not say that. There is reason to have both terms. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
That definition does exemplify my point about definitions reading as slander to bisexuals, as that definition does imply bisexuals are shallow, but that does not mean pansexuality isn’t a valid or useful term. The problem is trying to make a definition that is strict and draws a fine line between bisexuals and pansexuals. That cannot be done.
This is a grey area. Bisexuality is a diverse spectrum. The terms need to be a little fuzzy with some overlap. And that’s fine. The real world doesn’t fit neatly into the boxes we try to make for it.
Its good we have both the terms bisexual and pansexual. Its a very good thing we have words to communicate some of the many nuances that exist.
The issue becomes that we now have omnisexual, polysexual, pansexual, and bisexual.
We have labels on top of labels to describe once natural, barely labeled human behavior, millennia ago, even centuries ago in many precolonial parts of the world. In many cultures people just were who they were, they didn’t need to declare themselves as one thing to make sure that people didn’t commit the ultimate scandal: classifying them with another group. And I get that I’m being exaggerative here, and I am not ignorant to the fact that much of this behavior arises against societal violence (not only physical) from the assumed normative identity (whiteness, heterosexual, cis, etc…).
But we don’t unfuck this hegemonic society by further segregations of increasingly niche labels, while placing more weight on such labels. It is no coincidence these arise mainly from online or otherwise reclusive, isolated spaces. The
deathmurder of third spaces, unions, community, and collective action is designed to do exactly such things.All this to say, as I mentioned in another comment that I don’t think labels are inherently destructive, but that we have lost ourselves: as a species, as a society, as individuals. We don’t really know what healthy human behavior outside of a hegemonic, capitalist, imperial world looks like. It’s why things like anthropology are so important, but that also has so many issues that stem from the same hegemonic corruption of academia. In “losing” ourselves, we place such great importance on helpful but limited labels to close that subconscious hole of identity loss. And they start out small, but increase and become gaping. The ironic part is by now, this has so little to do specifically with bisexuality or pansexuality, and my critiques have broadened. I really am not attached to one label over another, but that doesn’t mean that I think we can just keep defining new ones to compensate.
Like someone responding to you said, it simply results in what we were always going to have to do, talk and get to know complex people. Instead of “oh there’s x person. He’s gay, but a twink not a bear, and I heard he’s problematic because x thing vs y thing…” And yes, I have heard people shove entire infinitely diverse human beings so violently into little boxes, so they “know” immediately how to judge them, pity them, hate them, etc…
Sorry this is so long. I have a lot of thoughts on this wider conversation about labels and our modernist society’s addiction to classifying everything and anything. Like you said, and Alan Watts, life isn’t boxes. As he says, there are no straight lines in nature just wibbles.
I think the problem is that identifying as pan vs bi doesn’t really communicate anything, because there’s not a meaningful consensus of what either word means in relation to the other. The definitions vary wildly depending on who’s using them, so you have to clarify either way and you may as well just explain your sexuality in more direct terms if the nuances matter.
I mean, practically, if someone tells me they’re bi or pan, it doesn’t really change my view of them. Like there’s not really any practical difference insofar as something I would need to know to treat them somehow. Like if I’m trying to flirt with someone, and if I was a man, and that person I find out is a a lesbian, then I wouldn’t. But if they’re bi or if they’re pan, it doesn’t change that.
There is a difference, I’m not saying there isn’t, and I’m not saying we should only use one if the two. I’m just saying the need for clarifying is overblown. If I’m curious why they picked one over the other, I might ask, but again, it’s not super critical for anything.
But is there really a difference, then? Both words communicate the same thing, i.e. being attracted to multiple genders. Anything beyond that is so subjective as to not really be meaningful beyond prescriptive queer discourse.
This. I feel like the more terms we create to specify the nuances of reality, the more niche labels get created to differentiate from that new word. It’s a recursive tree that betrays reality into increasingly disconnected illusion we tell ourselves is reality but isn’t.
I actually yearn for a world where labels don’t really exist the way they do now. I know that sounds crazy at first, but how beautiful a world where you can meet your friend John, and introduce him to someone, and there’s no immediate categorization of this person’s identity. It’s probably a pipe dream, I recognize that, but so many of our definitions now are defined in opposition to something else. Gay is not straight, trans is not cis, bisexual is not gay or straight, ethnic means not white (in our current context).
And it’s not like I think labels are inherently bad, but one of the sayings I try to live my life by is: methods are meant to serve us, not us serve methods. When we make once helpful tools into a false reality, we end up serving the things meant to simply aid us. I don’t know exactly how it would look, and that’s the cool part: I don’t have to, it would be a societal discourse. But to have all these competing, oppositional, binding terms simply be subsumed under personhood. Which of course demands the ending of normative culture: heteronormativity, whiteness, patriarchy, etc. As currently, those are our “normal”.
But in a just society would it be so bad to simply see a person and just let them be them? Maybe it would be, maybe I’m leaving out crucial aspects in my limited, single outlook. But man, I can dream.
Is it shallow to want to fuck someone because their hot? Isnt that literally the societal norm? The majority of interaction ive had by far are people with sexual attraction on looks that ive personally just never been able to relate too. Thats why I think there needs to be a distinction for those of us who dont feel that sexual attraction even if their aesthetic appearance is something we would be sexually atteacted too after being attracted to their personality
Although… Thinking about it that might fit under demisexual, but then you cant specify the gender, so demi-bisexual? Honestly maybe pansexual should just be the pretty name for demi-bisexual although I think others using pansexual would say its different from demi, or maybe omni would say their more demi-bisexual. Idk im definitely with you that there are too many labels, but I think sexual atteaction between physical and closeness/personality deserve to have a distinction