72 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

Um.. Just a quick question..

What the hell does LGBPT stand for?

[whykikyouwhy]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Um.. Just a quick question..

What the hell does LGBPT stand for?

Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Pansexual, Transgender.

[Volus Warlord]

Pansexual? Never heard of that one before.

[Swordfishtrombone]

^ Me neather. Until know, I've only heard about LGBT rights. The letters keep multiplying!

Anyway, I'm all for LGBPT (plus any other letters people may come up with) rights.

[Chromie]

mohsen m hangani wrote...
Say what is on your mind.

Your opening something dangerous.

[Volus Warlord]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

^ Me neather. Until know, I've only heard about LGBT rights. The letters keep multiplying!

Anyway, I'm all for LGBPT (plus any other letters people may come up with) rights.

How about NAMBLA?  That was a bad joke.

But seriously what does pansexual mean? It seems like another -sexual term pops up every other day.

[Swordfishtrombone]

^ just googled it - a pansexual is someone who can potentially be attracted to any human gender identity, biological or psychological.

[Volus Warlord]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

^ just googled it - a pansexual is someone who can potentially be attracted to any human gender identity, biological or psychological.

Er.. what?

Lemme try to piece this together. Correct me if I'm wrong.

An example of pansexuality (?) is the mad scientist dude on Archer trying to marry the chick computer program? 

Is that right or am I misintrepreting something?

[naughty99]

Congrats, I think this thread now became more about the "P" in "LGBPT":wizard:

Never heard of this before either.

From the wikipedia entry:

Roger, the grey alien in Seth McFarlane's American Dad, describes himself as a "...fey, pansexual, alcoholic, non-human"

Modifié par naughty99, 23 juillet 2011 - 09:55 .

[Seagloom]

I can answer this since I identify as pansexual. In short, it means attraction is based on personality over physicality. There is no preference based on a potential partner's sex or gender identity. Not to say that physical attractiveness never plays into it. Only that it is a secondary consideration to attraction.

[Volus Warlord]

Seagloom wrote...

I can answer this since I identify as pansexual. In short, it means attraction is based on personality over physicality. There is no preference based on a potential partner's sex or gender identity. Not to say that physical attractiveness never plays into it. Only that it is a secondary consideration to attraction.

So you're bi.

Why the extra terminology?

[naughty99]

Seagloom wrote...

I can answer this since I identify as pansexual. In short, it means attraction is based on personality over physicality. There is no preference based on a potential partner's sex or gender identity. Not to say that physical attractiveness never plays into it. Only that it is a secondary consideration to attraction.

If that is the case, then what is the difference between bisexual and pansexual?

[slimgrin]

Seagloom wrote...

I can answer this since I identify as pansexual. In short, it means attraction is based on personality over physicality. There is no preference based on a potential partner's sex or gender identity. Not to say that physical attractiveness never plays into it. Only that it is a secondary consideration to attraction.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't understand..but I still like boobs.

[Seagloom]

Volus Warlord wrote...

So you're bi.

Why the extra terminology?

No, I am not. Bi is more rigid. A bi person has a roughly equal attraction to either sex. It is rarely really 50/50, but usually close enough. As well, bisexual implies an attraction that is as much physical as mental. I find most men physically repulsive, but if I like a man's personality I can still feel attracted to them.

As well, there are other sex and gender combinations to consider. Other transsexuals, genderqueer, androgynes and the like who may not always fall into a neat binary male/female category. A bisexual person may not be attracted to any or all of these individuals.

The distinction between bisexual and pansexual is a fine one, but it still exists.

Modifié par Seagloom, 23 juillet 2011 - 10:05 .

[Volus Warlord]

Seagloom wrote...



No, I am not. Bi is more rigid. A bi person has a roughly equal attraction to either sex. It is rarely really 50/50, but usually close enough. As well, bisexual implies an attraction that is as much physical as mental. I find most men physically repulsive, but if I like a man's personality I can still feel attracted to them.

As well, there are other sex and gender combinations to consider. Other transsexuals, genderqueer, androgynes and the like who may not always fall into a neat binary male/female category. A bisexual person may not be attracted to any or all of these individuals.

The distinction between bisexual and pansexual is a fine one, but it still exists.

Prepare to be offended. :innocent: Fair warning. I mean no harm, but it may come accross as that.


I still don't see any real difference. You say that the difference between you and and a bisexual person is an emphasis on personality. Sounds fair-ish..

However, almost everybody says they place emphasis on personality. I tell girls I care about personality first, body second. Do I? Sometimes. :innocent:I really deserve to go to hell.. But my vices are not the point. The point is the only seperation between someone who "values" body more vs. personality and vice versa is word of mouth. As you probably are aware, word of mouth =/= choice in action. The disparity between speech and action and a vast middle ground between the extremes makes categorization of either tendency virtually impossible on any scale. 

Relevance? You say you value personality first. Fine. Not a damn thing wrong with that. However, you are trying to categorize people en masse with that as a factor, which is nonsense.  I just don't see how you could put a label on something so inconsistant. It doesn't make sense. Taking that into account, "pansexuality" just seems like a glorified version of bisexuality, with the only real difference being someone saying they are pansexual vs. saying they are bisexual. It seems like an attempt to differentiate yourself from a group over something very, very trivial.

All in all, I just don't see the point. More sociopolitical nonsense I am supposed to know.

[Fidget6]

Pansexuals as I understand it are attracted to more than just physical appearance, therefore don't see gender as an obstacle. Bisexuals are people who are physically attracted to both sexes. As for all the "extra" terminology, sexuality is not black-and-white, so three cookie-cutter labels don't always cut it.

[Seagloom]

@Volus Warlord

You do not see the point but others out there obviously do or the term would not exist. Personally, I do not go around telling people I am this or that, but when the question is raised and I need to point to a single encompassing label for my sexuality, pansexual is a better fit than bisexual. It works for me.

If you feel the distinction is "very, very trivial" then you would probably find the avalanche of LGBTQ subculture terms overwhelming. Despite the staggeringly diverse spectrum of gender and sexuality humans are capable of, people still try to affix labels to every permutation.

Take transgender, for example. I can think of nine terms off the top of my head to describe different permutations of gender identity that all fall under the transgender umbrella. Some of them exist for social and political reasons, as some of us dislike the transgender label. Others are to describe the specific mindset of a given trans individual, or their status in transition.

Trivial as it may seem to you, these distinctions matter a great deal to many people. I do advise, however, that you mind what you tell people is trivial or not to their face. If nothing else it comes across as dismissively disrespectful, regardless of preemptive disclaimers.

With that, I will step out of this thread.

[whykikyouwhy]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Seagloom wrote...



No, I am not. Bi is more rigid. A bi person has a roughly equal attraction to either sex. It is rarely really 50/50, but usually close enough. As well, bisexual implies an attraction that is as much physical as mental. I find most men physically repulsive, but if I like a man's personality I can still feel attracted to them.

As well, there are other sex and gender combinations to consider. Other transsexuals, genderqueer, androgynes and the like who may not always fall into a neat binary male/female category. A bisexual person may not be attracted to any or all of these individuals.

The distinction between bisexual and pansexual is a fine one, but it still exists.

Prepare to be offended. :innocent: Fair warning. I mean no harm, but it may come accross as that.


I still don't see any real difference. You say that the difference between you and and a bisexual person is an emphasis on personality. Sounds fair-ish..

However, almost everybody says they place emphasis on personality. I tell girls I care about personality first, body second. Do I? Sometimes. :innocent:I really deserve to go to hell.. But my vices are not the point. The point is the only seperation between someone who "values" body more vs. personality and vice versa is word of mouth. As you probably are aware, word of mouth =/= choice in action. The disparity between speech and action and a vast middle ground between the extremes makes categorization of either tendency virtually impossible on any scale. 

Relevance? You say you value personality first. Fine. Not a damn thing wrong with that. However, you are trying to categorize people en masse with that as a factor, which is nonsense.  I just don't see how you could put a label on something so inconsistant. It doesn't make sense. Taking that into account, "pansexuality" just seems like a glorified version of bisexuality, with the only real difference being someone saying they are pansexual vs. saying they are bisexual. It seems like an attempt to differentiate yourself from a group over something very, very trivial.

All in all, I just don't see the point. More sociopolitical nonsense I am supposed to know.

However a person wishes to identify his/herself is their right and privilege. People identify as straight, as gay, as bisexual, as pansexual, as transgender...and some people are still trying to determine who they are in any and all aspects of their persona.

However you may see pansexuality, as "glorified" or what have you, some people identify as such. This thread, if I am not mistaken, is meant to be about love. So perhaps we may not all see eye to eye on what little box or checkmark to use, and may not use a specific label for our own selves, or may not understand why others may do so, but we can at least try to respect the thoughts and feelings of others, and who they feel and know themselves to be.

The bottom line is that love is love.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Is bad old me the only one who recognizes forum rules around these here parts?

But before the lock comes I'm going to say this pansexual thing sounds like a load of nonsense.

[Fidget6]

ReconTeam wrote...
But before the lock comes I'm going to say this pansexual thing sounds like a load of nonsense.

Sounds like a simple orientation to me. I don't get what's so hard to understand. 

[Volus Warlord]

Turnip Root wrote...

You're just saying that because hot guys aren't into you. 

That's kind of a low blow, man 

Seagloom wrote...

@Volus Warlord

You do not
see the point but others out there obviously do or the term would not
exist. Personally, I do not go around telling people I am this or that,
but when the question is raised and I need to point to a single
encompassing label for my sexuality, pansexual is a better fit than
bisexual. It works for me.

If you feel the distinction is "very,
very trivial" then you would probably find the avalanche of LGBTQ
subculture terms overwhelming. Despite the staggeringly diverse spectrum
of gender and sexuality humans are capable of, people still try to
affix labels to every permutation.

Take transgender, for example.
I can think of nine terms off the top of my head to describe different
permutations of gender identity that all fall under the transgender
umbrella. Some of them exist for social and political reasons, as some
of us dislike the transgender label. Others are to describe the specific
mindset of a given trans individual, or their status in transition.

Trivial
as it may seem to you, these distinctions matter a great deal to many
people. I do advise, however, that you mind what you tell people is
trivial or not to their face. If nothing else it comes across as
dismissively disrespectful, regardless of preemptive disclaimers.

With that, I will step out of this thread.

So, everyone wants their own special term and they will keep making them
whether they make sense or severely overlap or not. Fair enough I guess. I can't stop you.

whykikyouwhy wrote...


However a person wishes to identify his/herself is their right and privilege. People identify as straight, as gay, as bisexual, as pansexual, as transgender...and some people are still trying to determine who they are in any and all aspects of their persona.

However you may see pansexuality, as "glorified" or what have you, some people identify as such. This thread, if I am not mistaken, is meant to be about love. So perhaps we may not all see eye to eye on what little box or checkmark to use, and may not use a specific label for our own selves, or may not understand why others may do so, but we can at least try to respect the thoughts and feelings of others, and who they feel and know themselves to be.

The bottom line is that love is love.

So it's your right to call yourself whatever you damn well please. Fine. I just think it'd be easier for everyone if we tried to keep things more direct rather than attempt to make ourselves more unique with terminology.. but to each his own, I guess.

"Love is love." Humbug!

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 23 juillet 2011 - 11:16 .

[RhiGibson]

I identify as pansexual.
Put it this way ... bi means 2 ... there are more than 2 genders thus pansexuality comes into play, and I consider myself 'gender blind' in I have no preference over someone because of their body/sexual organs etc. etc. PERSONALITY all the way.
But there are quite a few different definitions on pansexual.

[Fidget6]

RhiGibson wrote...

I identify as pansexual.
Put it this way ... bi means 2 ... there are more than 2 genders thus pansexuality comes into play, and I consider myself 'gender blind' in I have no preference over someone because of their body/sexual organs etc. etc. PERSONALITY all the way.
But there are quite a few different definitions on pansexual.

I think it's so funny how difficult this is for people to grasp. Let's really blow their mind once we throw polysexual and omnisexual into the mix.