Omnisexual - You’ve spent way more time thinking about your sexuality than getting laid
Demisexual - You’re way more queer than you’re ready to admit.
Sapiosexual - You’re a straight guy trying to impress the cute barista by seeming cool and intellectual. You are failing. Or you are a woman on a dating app trying to stop the endless flood of low-effort “sup” introductions. You are also failing.
Edit: Forgot one!
Heteroflexible - Willing to touch someone of the same gender sorta sexually for an audience if you think it means you’ll get a threesome later.
Honestly I think you're giving them too much credit to say they're doing it to avoid messages. It's the same weird virtue signalling in both cases. "Not like the other girls," etc.
It's inventing a sexuality because you think it makes you sounds smart. Ooohh physical attraction is for losers, I'm only attracted to BRAINS. I can't help but think these people would still shy away from an ugly genius
I'm pansexual, solidly a millennial, and started using the term nearly a decade and a half ago. Which was late to the game, since the term had been around for about a decade before that.
Under what does someone fall, who regularly forgets that sex exists, immune to flirting, needs external reminders/influence and effort to get in to the mood, cant wrap their head around attraction at all and completely hates the hand their dealt with?
Hey now! I may be autistic but I assure you I don’t ever forget sex exists and im horny like 90~95% of the time, but I am completely oblivious to flirting or interesting shown so that doesn’t get mitigated as much as I’d like
Probably because the identities we circle back to often have merit even if we don't like it (the number of years I kept finding stupid arguments that I wasn't trans…)
It sounds like you dislike this about yourself. You could check to see if there's a medical issue causing extremely low libido. But fair warning, it may just result in you being horny and not finding anyone attractive.
Yes i kinda dislike it as it is a source of problems and just accepting it wouldn't really solve any issues.
Sadly I've been trying to fix it for years, problems probably started or at least become noticable over a decade ago. By now i have already exhausted approved medical and physical means in trying to fix it, even started replacement therapy eventually as test levels were on the low end even despite doing as much as possible to boost those.
While it has had rather good outcome on overall physical and mental health, it hasn't had any effect on libido.
Haven't yet delved into balck market or anabolic steroids territory, yet and of course therapy is still left, but that's rather expensive and social stigma is kinda strong on that subject. Especially for a guy who seemingly shouldn't have any issues regarding it.
But there is, it causes problems and puts unproportionaly much pressure on the other side. Aka the other side needs to do the initiating 99% of the times, which creates the feeling of not being wanted.
Coupled with the constant rejection as well isn't that good on self esteem either.
Like in relationships posts which get more popular, there are always guys who complain how they're tired from constantly initiating and don't feel wanted, which leads to them just giving up all together.
Let me put it this way: Do you hate a gay man for not wanting to fuck women? Asexuality is a valid part of the spectrum. If you have no interest, then you have no interest. But it doesn't mean you can't have an intimate relationship or love. Plenty do it. The key is communication - if your partner thinks you have sexual feelings but are rejecting them then it's a very different beast to "I don't have sexual feelings for anyone"
there are always guys who complain how they’re tired from constantly initiating and don’t feel wanted
If you're talking the broader complaints of society here, that's a very different kettle of fish, and a lot of it is tied into not doing the work before just going "snog me, woman!"
I apologize in advance if it gets too depressive or over sharing. I've noticed over the years that just writing things down can be kinda helpful in at least articulating and getting a better understanding of my own mental processes.
Fair, yeah i wouldn't hate another individual over something that simple aka gay man not wanting to fuck woman. It's rather easy to accept other individuals than oneself.
It's so much more easier to hate oneself and beat oneself up, even if it's completely irrational. It's something that can be done, even if detrimental, but it gives at least some form of an illusion over having control over it.
Like not remembering to initiate more or being too tired and not pushing through it or forgetting actions that make the partner feel wanted or the equipment being already fully primed and ready to go, but the mind not being there. If i fail those, it's my fault. I have to do better and try harder. Maybe if i keep searching for long enough i will eventually find a cure or a fix.
Accepting asexuality seems like giving up without a fight, like surrendering.
While love and intimacy might be rather complicated concepts for me, as I've understood yes those are possible without sex, but once again from a practical perspective overwhelming majority of people do see sex as the main distinction between friendship and a relationship. So the lack of drive or desire is going to be a rather huge disadvantage.
Yes i know and been told that I'm not supposed to "date" half the population, so the disadvantage shouldnt matter, but i never did manage to figure out what's supposed to be the driving force beyond practicality then.
On the broader complaints part. Fair, probably a bad example as i tried to show the effect of not feeling wanted and the burden of being the one who disproportionately has to initiate, while taking it from a too biased perspective and not properly knowing the background details, though it still does hit rather close to home being at the opposite end of it.
I may have gotten my terms mixed up, but I think demi is reactive sexuality, someone who gets turned on by their partner getting turned on. Requires a bond / connection. Not really interested without it.
I’m not super familiar with terms on that ace spectrum though. It’s somewhere on there.
Fair, reactively getting turned on kinda fits under outside influence part. Though cant tell anything about the bond/connection aspect, as thats way too vague and complicated for me.
I'm old and refused to claim a flag when they were presented.
I just tell people that "I'm independent, but occupied" or I ask them why they are so concerned about my penis, depending on the manner in which the question was asked.
Sorry, I don't actually know any, but I guessed the kitchen jokes about pansexual are related to the "pan" part. I then though it feasible there were shopping jokes about bisexuals because of the "bi" (homophone for buy) part.
To be fair, pansexuality is under the umbrella of bisexuality. What makes it more confusing is that there is no rule saying that bisexuals must only be attracted to 2 genders. Nor is there a rule stating that a bisexual must care about the gender of their partner.
Edit: bisexual is a very old term, but it does not strictly refer to only two genders.
Ahhh, so pansexual means that you like half man, half goat people who play the flute? Or is it that you get an erection at the thought of buying new kitchen ware?
Actually it originally refers to having two sexes. Aka hermaphroditic.
I really hate how the word “sexual” has evolved in meaning into “relating to the activity that evolved to happen between the two main sexes”. We have the perfectly good Greek root “ero” and for some reason we have gradually muddled up the meaning of “sexual”.
It could also be applied to animals meaning something that nowadays would be described as “intersex”.
I just think this meaning makes much more sense than “being attracted to two (later multiple) sexes”. If about sexuality and not sex, “bisexual” should just mean “with sexuality related to the number two” based on the etymology.
I think what you're stuck on is the scientific use of a word and a social use of a word can have different meanings. And depending on context the scientific use can differ.
In the case of bisexual, the term was likely used because the preference was for both genitals, since only 2 genders existed to science at that point. Also the term was coined by psychologists in 1890.
Well the modern usage of “bisexual” regarding sexual orientation has also found its way into science, evidenced by the lack of prominent scientific synonyms
Which again is irritating because scientific terminology shouldn’t be this lax
I think “bisexual” only references two sexes because it was created to describe a phenomenon related to sexual reproduction which evolved to occur between two main sexes; the term was unrelated to gender
As someone who identifies as pansexual, the distinction i make is that I don't consider gender when vetting a potential partner, it's just not a metric that is part of that decision.
Aside from that, your description here is spot on from what I understand at least. Of course gender and sexuality is a social construct so other people may feel differently
In my friend group, the bisexuals are very “gender is irrelevant.”
While the “attracted to one specific gender and others” ppl tend me more … “straight, but I’ll suck a dick” (or the inverse “gay, but boobs are super hot”)
That's super interesting and totally does not at all reflect the conversations I've had with my friends!
I guess it just goes to show how subjective it is, which is why there is no real consensus. I can only really speak for myself and the people in my circles. I won't argue with bisexual/pansexual people who identify differently because we dictate our own identities really.
I switch between them, but I concur, I also prefer the bi flag and I usually just identify as bi for simplicity and not having to explain the difference lol
No, not really. Bisexual is older and not enough people can even agree on what pansexuality is. There are people with gender preferences who still identify as pansexual, which kinda distills any point of the word.
Edit: I'm not here to comment on the bi/pan debate, and do not intend for my comment to extend to that debate. But the definition of "bilingual" (the subject of the question I'm answering) seems to be extremely clear on its specificity. From Merriam-Webster:
1: having or expressed in two languages
a bilingual document
an officially bilingual nation
2: using or able to use two languages especially with equal fluency
Sure. But if you want to dig that hard into the meaning of the suffix "bi" when used in queer spaces, you're gonna wear yourself out.
I identify pan because I don't care what's between your legs, I like you and want to touch it. But I'm not going to I'm acktually someone for feeling the exact same way but identify bi.
My wife generally says that she's bi, but if she were coming out today she's said that she'd probably call herself pan, that just wasn't really a common term when back when she did come out so she's spent most of her life calling herself bi, and she just kind of identifies with that label more at this point.
To her, the term bi does kind of imply that someone is attracted only to males or females and would tend to exclude non-binary gender identities (though not necessarily trans people, being MtF or FtM does still kind of line up with a traditional gender binary, a trans man is a man and a trans woman is a woman)
Which doesn't really describe her, she'd be cool with any identity, which to her is more pan, but again she's just been calling herself bi for so long it just feels weird to change that, and since she's off the market at this point it's a little bit of a moot point anyway since she's not trying to get in anyone's pants but mine.
I feel like placing identities into hierarchies always ends up controversial. Like non-binary is technically under transgender because transgender just means your transitioning from your assigned gender to something else; but a lot of non-binary people really don't like being called transgender instead of non-binary.
At the end of the day, the words meanings are a subjective experience that cannot be directly observed or compared. So functionally all self-identifying terms exist flat relative to each other because there will always be contradictory definitions that you can't rigidly settle on without ignoring significant groups of people.
Head canon is where you make shit up for internal entertainment. This being on lemmy, I kinda assumed that even in a science meme community, head canon would be understood. Sorry about that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm dubious if pansexual being invented by people that didn't understand that though. The word pansexual is usually acknowledged as being derived from pansexualism, which was coined whole by or about Freud (supposedly, I wasn't alive then to know) to mean that sex and sexuality are a primary motivation in all human existence.
The later term came around back in the seventies, and was being used to mean having no limits on sexuality. I've run across people saying they used it as far back as the sixties in that context, but they were dirty hippie potheads, sooo...
In any case, it was in use during at least the late seventies, as it showed up in print in some of the books of the era that were part of the sexual revolution. And it didn't "just" mean trans inclusive, nor was it used as a direct synonym for bisexual. It very much included things like what gets called polyamory now, group activity, etc. The core usage was that the person calling themselves pansexual was not limiting themselves to the standard paradigm, which is a different thing from being attracted to and/or having hetero and/or homo sexual activity.
I'm not sure exactly when the term got shifted to the increasingly common usage of "trans inclusive sexual orientation", though I remember running into it as far back as either the late nineties or early oughts.
So, I'm fairly confident that the people back in the sixties or seventies that originated it as something close to an orientation knew that bisexuality existed, and saw pansexual as being something that went beyond it in some way. I've definitely never run across any definitive "first use" where the term was defined in print. Not saying it wasn't, just that none of my reading of the matter back in the day uncovered it, and human sexuality was very present in my mom's collection of books. Our town library even included books on the subject, though less than what my mom had, and way less than I had access to later on.
With that in mind, if you have run across something definitive regarding the origin of the term either in the seventies sense, or its adoption as trans inclusive, I would absolutely love it if you could guide me to it. Not being snarky, not being contrarian, I'd genuinely enjoy learning more about it because it's a subject that's fascinated me since I was old enough to think about sex at all.
This is really interesting and a great contribution to this discussion. I wish whoever was downvoting you would comment to say what they take issue with.
I don't really know how guy unicorns are targeted? Are they? I've only heard of the term unicorn being applied to women. But, I'm adjacent to the space at best.
Has cucking, becoming more fashionable, increased couples targeting bulls the same way unicorns are? As in toxically.
I suppose it's different, a unicorn is expected to attended to both partners equally. Whereas, a bull isn't really.
This is both off topic, and a Wendy's. I don't expect an answer.
The fact that is sarcasm doesn't change the fact that your comment suggests that threesomes are the thing you talk about when talking about bi/pan people.
Expressly and unequivocally, threesomes are not something I particularly talk about when talking to bi/pan people.
Certainly not any more than anyone else. It isn't something I voluntarily suggest we do, it's not something I expressly ask about. Some of my friends have had threesomes, and some of those are bi/pan. So it's not something I've not talked about, it's just not the first thing that comes to mind.
Do you have a resource to confirm what you're saying? Because homosexual means same sex and heterosexual is opposite sex. Bisexual would be both sexes by that reasoning
It was recently pointed out to me that an outfit I have been rocking for years makes it look like I’m trying to be a walking bisexual flag: pink button up over a purple tank top with blue shorts. This was by coincidence do but I love those colors so I was fully prepared to die on the hill that it was the superior flag.
But after refreshing my memory, you right the pan flag looks like three flavors of ice cream stacked atop each other
Honestly to me the difference is mostly cultural or vibes, and I just identify with bi vibes more. I feel like the flags encapsulate this difference well
bisexual flowers do exists and theres variations of this too. and then theres mononecious, and unisexual plants. plants are all kinds of "sexuality." depending on the species.(apomixis, vegative growth, root cloning.) plants have all the "sexuals" that animals can dream of.
This is so weird for me. I thought my app was broken (and I'm thinking it is in a niche way) because suddenly almost no posts were loading. It turns out you just spammed a ton of posts, and they specifically won't load for me, but all other posts are fine. Weird.
I'm bisexual so I really only feel qualified to assert that definition.
I believe that pansexuals are attracted despite gender. I dunno, I can't tell the difference between the two. I'm just old and bisexual feels like it fits better for me.
Nah, that's the annoying myth that bi people hate. My partner is trans, and transitioned during our relationship, and I always joke that as a lazy bisexual this is perfect for me.
Really it's just old people (millenials) call it bi, and you young whipper-snappers with your eight track tapes get all pedantic about the sound of the word.
Yeah, generational, it grew branches. The phonetics of "bi" matter and the language is evolving. But we totally get the Bi doesn't mean two genders for that generation of queers that reached for that word.
ahh see now you have retreated to "original" meaning. So by that metric, everyone who's heart is light (ie "gay") is attracted to everyone who is their gender.
Yeah as a trans woman I've never seen someone identify as bi and thought "I shouldn't hit on her" because of that label. And if I also found men attractive I'd almost certainly use that label.
Bisexual - You’re over 35
Pansexual - You’re under 35
Omnisexual - You’ve spent way more time thinking about your sexuality than getting laid
Demisexual - You’re way more queer than you’re ready to admit.
Sapiosexual - You’re a straight guy trying to impress the cute barista by seeming cool and intellectual. You are failing. Or you are a woman on a dating app trying to stop the endless flood of low-effort “sup” introductions. You are also failing.
Edit: Forgot one!
Heteroflexible - Willing to touch someone of the same gender sorta sexually for an audience if you think it means you’ll get a threesome later.
Flexisexual - you'll take what you can get
Mexisexual if you like it spicy, corny, and fulfilling.
Also known as bi-greedy
Are they a regex?
.*sexualI've been Demisexual since I first watched Striptease as a teenager.
Huh, I've only ever heard women describe themselves as sapiosexual
Ditto.
Updated!
Honestly I think you're giving them too much credit to say they're doing it to avoid messages. It's the same weird virtue signalling in both cases. "Not like the other girls," etc.
It's inventing a sexuality because you think it makes you sounds smart. Ooohh physical attraction is for losers, I'm only attracted to BRAINS. I can't help but think these people would still shy away from an ugly genius
Oof if they did it to you, it was a drive by
I like to call it "millenial" vs "gen z" pan/bisexuality
I'm pansexual, solidly a millennial, and started using the term nearly a decade and a half ago. Which was late to the game, since the term had been around for about a decade before that.
Swear I heard it late nineties
Nah, mills are all about the pan, genx are the bis
I thought pansexual was where you had the legs of a goat, played a little reed flute, and got off on being generally mischievous.
Under what does someone fall, who regularly forgets that sex exists, immune to flirting, needs external reminders/influence and effort to get in to the mood, cant wrap their head around attraction at all and completely hates the hand their dealt with?
Autistic.
Hey now! I may be autistic but I assure you I don’t ever forget sex exists and im horny like 90~95% of the time, but I am completely oblivious to flirting or interesting shown so that doesn’t get mitigated as much as I’d like
Well yeah, little bit of that too. That's what probably makes it more confusing.
That would be asexual
Ace, or graysexual
Damnit, why i always circle back to that one.
Probably because the identities we circle back to often have merit even if we don't like it (the number of years I kept finding stupid arguments that I wasn't trans…)
It sounds like you dislike this about yourself. You could check to see if there's a medical issue causing extremely low libido. But fair warning, it may just result in you being horny and not finding anyone attractive.
Yes i kinda dislike it as it is a source of problems and just accepting it wouldn't really solve any issues.
Sadly I've been trying to fix it for years, problems probably started or at least become noticable over a decade ago. By now i have already exhausted approved medical and physical means in trying to fix it, even started replacement therapy eventually as test levels were on the low end even despite doing as much as possible to boost those.
While it has had rather good outcome on overall physical and mental health, it hasn't had any effect on libido.
Haven't yet delved into balck market or anabolic steroids territory, yet and of course therapy is still left, but that's rather expensive and social stigma is kinda strong on that subject. Especially for a guy who seemingly shouldn't have any issues regarding it.
Aro/ace.
You need to work on detangling intimacy and sex in your brain, there's no reason to hate lack of drive.
But there is, it causes problems and puts unproportionaly much pressure on the other side. Aka the other side needs to do the initiating 99% of the times, which creates the feeling of not being wanted. Coupled with the constant rejection as well isn't that good on self esteem either.
Like in relationships posts which get more popular, there are always guys who complain how they're tired from constantly initiating and don't feel wanted, which leads to them just giving up all together.
no, there is no reason to hate lack of drive.
Let me put it this way: Do you hate a gay man for not wanting to fuck women? Asexuality is a valid part of the spectrum. If you have no interest, then you have no interest. But it doesn't mean you can't have an intimate relationship or love. Plenty do it. The key is communication - if your partner thinks you have sexual feelings but are rejecting them then it's a very different beast to "I don't have sexual feelings for anyone"
If you're talking the broader complaints of society here, that's a very different kettle of fish, and a lot of it is tied into not doing the work before just going "snog me, woman!"
I apologize in advance if it gets too depressive or over sharing. I've noticed over the years that just writing things down can be kinda helpful in at least articulating and getting a better understanding of my own mental processes.
Fair, yeah i wouldn't hate another individual over something that simple aka gay man not wanting to fuck woman. It's rather easy to accept other individuals than oneself. It's so much more easier to hate oneself and beat oneself up, even if it's completely irrational. It's something that can be done, even if detrimental, but it gives at least some form of an illusion over having control over it.
Like not remembering to initiate more or being too tired and not pushing through it or forgetting actions that make the partner feel wanted or the equipment being already fully primed and ready to go, but the mind not being there. If i fail those, it's my fault. I have to do better and try harder. Maybe if i keep searching for long enough i will eventually find a cure or a fix.
Accepting asexuality seems like giving up without a fight, like surrendering.
While love and intimacy might be rather complicated concepts for me, as I've understood yes those are possible without sex, but once again from a practical perspective overwhelming majority of people do see sex as the main distinction between friendship and a relationship. So the lack of drive or desire is going to be a rather huge disadvantage.
Yes i know and been told that I'm not supposed to "date" half the population, so the disadvantage shouldnt matter, but i never did manage to figure out what's supposed to be the driving force beyond practicality then.
On the broader complaints part. Fair, probably a bad example as i tried to show the effect of not feeling wanted and the burden of being the one who disproportionately has to initiate, while taking it from a too biased perspective and not properly knowing the background details, though it still does hit rather close to home being at the opposite end of it.
Pretty sure that’s demi.
Others are saying grey or ace. Why demi then?
I may have gotten my terms mixed up, but I think demi is reactive sexuality, someone who gets turned on by their partner getting turned on. Requires a bond / connection. Not really interested without it.
I’m not super familiar with terms on that ace spectrum though. It’s somewhere on there.
Fair, reactively getting turned on kinda fits under outside influence part. Though cant tell anything about the bond/connection aspect, as thats way too vague and complicated for me.
It's not reactive, it means that attraction is conditional on an emotional bond existing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demisexuality
That is the best description of sapiosexual I have ever heard
I'm old and refused to claim a flag when they were presented.
I just tell people that "I'm independent, but occupied" or I ask them why they are so concerned about my penis, depending on the manner in which the question was asked.
A bisexual is a pansexual who's had enough of kitchen jokes
Would a pansexual be a bisexual who's had enough shopping jokes?
No. But of Bicycles.
Wait, I'm sorry but I have never heard a bisexual shopping joke. Would you please educate me?
Sorry, I don't actually know any, but I guessed the kitchen jokes about pansexual are related to the "pan" part. I then though it feasible there were shopping jokes about bisexuals because of the "bi" (homophone for buy) part.
Ah okay! I'm more into the utensils.
To be fair, pansexuality is under the umbrella of bisexuality. What makes it more confusing is that there is no rule saying that bisexuals must only be attracted to 2 genders. Nor is there a rule stating that a bisexual must care about the gender of their partner.
Edit: bisexual is a very old term, but it does not strictly refer to only two genders.
Doesn't the name imply only two?
A master, and an apprentice.
Bisithual
No it implies once every other week
Wait
Well then what's semisexual?? I'll never get this figured out
that means you like large trucks for hauling commercial goods
Ahhh, so pansexual means that you like half man, half goat people who play the flute? Or is it that you get an erection at the thought of buying new kitchen ware?
I've got a hot little Le Crouset simmering in the kitchen 🤤
The former, I guess, if this clip rubs you the right way.
Does this work?
YouTube
Link didn't work for me.
Or twice a week?
Shit, that's the rough life. I'll take the twice a week definition instead please, Trebek.
That'd be semi-weekly.
You mean semi-sexual?
Too real.
The "bi" is for both homosexual and heterosexual relations. Not gender itself.
TIL
Sure but it can be interpreted as "people who share my gender" and "people who do not share my gender."
This is off-topic, but... For some reason, that reminded me of a funny exchange I had with someone who was buying a lottery ticket, years ago...
Me: "What are the chances that you'll win?"
Him, with a heavy southern (US) accent: "50/50. You either win or you don't."
That's because it's an extremely old term; it merely refers to someone who is attracted to more than one gender.
Ok but did we really need yet another term that is difficult to distinguish from pre-existing terms?
When you have to write an essay to describe it, that should be a clue.
Bisexual is the original term.
A clue to what? That some concepts take more than one second to explain?
Actually it originally refers to having two sexes. Aka hermaphroditic.
I really hate how the word “sexual” has evolved in meaning into “relating to the activity that evolved to happen between the two main sexes”. We have the perfectly good Greek root “ero” and for some reason we have gradually muddled up the meaning of “sexual”.
In plants*
It could also be applied to animals meaning something that nowadays would be described as “intersex”.
I just think this meaning makes much more sense than “being attracted to two (later multiple) sexes”. If about sexuality and not sex, “bisexual” should just mean “with sexuality related to the number two” based on the etymology.
I think what you're stuck on is the scientific use of a word and a social use of a word can have different meanings. And depending on context the scientific use can differ.
In the case of bisexual, the term was likely used because the preference was for both genitals, since only 2 genders existed to science at that point. Also the term was coined by psychologists in 1890.
Well the modern usage of “bisexual” regarding sexual orientation has also found its way into science, evidenced by the lack of prominent scientific synonyms
Which again is irritating because scientific terminology shouldn’t be this lax
I think “bisexual” only references two sexes because it was created to describe a phenomenon related to sexual reproduction which evolved to occur between two main sexes; the term was unrelated to gender
It does, but definitions often diverge from the original over time
But is there a rule that says a dog can’t play basketball?
No
We are a go for airbud 12
.
.
.
.
RIP Buddy we all love you
As someone who identifies as pansexual, the distinction i make is that I don't consider gender when vetting a potential partner, it's just not a metric that is part of that decision.
Aside from that, your description here is spot on from what I understand at least. Of course gender and sexuality is a social construct so other people may feel differently
bisexual = attracted to all genders
pansexual = no gender they are not attracted to
Kinda!
The way I'd personally word it is:
Bisexual = attracted to their own gender and other genders (perhaps not every gender but that depends on the person)
Pansexual = gender is irrelevant
The distinction is mostly semantic as it doesn't really change much in terms of how we operate in dating.
Counter-anecdote
In my friend group, the bisexuals are very “gender is irrelevant.”
While the “attracted to one specific gender and others” ppl tend me more … “straight, but I’ll suck a dick” (or the inverse “gay, but boobs are super hot”)
That's super interesting and totally does not at all reflect the conversations I've had with my friends!
I guess it just goes to show how subjective it is, which is why there is no real consensus. I can only really speak for myself and the people in my circles. I won't argue with bisexual/pansexual people who identify differently because we dictate our own identities really.
The only reason I identify as bi instead of pan is because I like the bi flag more
I switch between them, but I concur, I also prefer the bi flag and I usually just identify as bi for simplicity and not having to explain the difference lol
Err shouldn't it be the other way around? Ie bisexuality under the umbrella of pan-?
No, not really. Bisexual is older and not enough people can even agree on what pansexuality is. There are people with gender preferences who still identify as pansexual, which kinda distills any point of the word.
Fair enough
Bi-sexual. So attracted to both sexes. Not genders.
Homo> Same Hetero > Different Bi > Attracted to both same and different
So you're not bilingual if you know multiple languages?
Nope, that's multilingual or polyglot.
Edit: I'm not here to comment on the bi/pan debate, and do not intend for my comment to extend to that debate. But the definition of "bilingual" (the subject of the question I'm answering) seems to be extremely clear on its specificity. From Merriam-Webster:
1: having or expressed in two languages
a bilingual document
an officially bilingual nation
2: using or able to use two languages especially with equal fluency
bilingual in English and Japanese
3: of or relating to bilingual education
Sure. But if you want to dig that hard into the meaning of the suffix "bi" when used in queer spaces, you're gonna wear yourself out.
I identify pan because I don't care what's between your legs, I like you and want to touch it. But I'm not going to I'm acktually someone for feeling the exact same way but identify bi.
Please see my edit.
Please read my comment.
Nope. Bi means own gender and others.
My wife generally says that she's bi, but if she were coming out today she's said that she'd probably call herself pan, that just wasn't really a common term when back when she did come out so she's spent most of her life calling herself bi, and she just kind of identifies with that label more at this point.
To her, the term bi does kind of imply that someone is attracted only to males or females and would tend to exclude non-binary gender identities (though not necessarily trans people, being MtF or FtM does still kind of line up with a traditional gender binary, a trans man is a man and a trans woman is a woman)
Which doesn't really describe her, she'd be cool with any identity, which to her is more pan, but again she's just been calling herself bi for so long it just feels weird to change that, and since she's off the market at this point it's a little bit of a moot point anyway since she's not trying to get in anyone's pants but mine.
I feel like placing identities into hierarchies always ends up controversial. Like non-binary is technically under transgender because transgender just means your transitioning from your assigned gender to something else; but a lot of non-binary people really don't like being called transgender instead of non-binary.
At the end of the day, the words meanings are a subjective experience that cannot be directly observed or compared. So functionally all self-identifying terms exist flat relative to each other because there will always be contradictory definitions that you can't rigidly settle on without ignoring significant groups of people.
....bi means 2.
I tend to head canon it as binarysexual and pansexual, just as a way to keep them straight (heh) when running through things in thought
That's incorrect though. Bisexual means "homo- and heterosexual" as in, "those that share your gender and those that don't".
Which is the same as pansexual. But pansexual is a term invented by people who didn't understand the above.
That's why I said head canon.
Head canon is where you make shit up for internal entertainment. This being on lemmy, I kinda assumed that even in a science meme community, head canon would be understood. Sorry about that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm dubious if pansexual being invented by people that didn't understand that though. The word pansexual is usually acknowledged as being derived from pansexualism, which was coined whole by or about Freud (supposedly, I wasn't alive then to know) to mean that sex and sexuality are a primary motivation in all human existence.
The later term came around back in the seventies, and was being used to mean having no limits on sexuality. I've run across people saying they used it as far back as the sixties in that context, but they were dirty hippie potheads, sooo...
In any case, it was in use during at least the late seventies, as it showed up in print in some of the books of the era that were part of the sexual revolution. And it didn't "just" mean trans inclusive, nor was it used as a direct synonym for bisexual. It very much included things like what gets called polyamory now, group activity, etc. The core usage was that the person calling themselves pansexual was not limiting themselves to the standard paradigm, which is a different thing from being attracted to and/or having hetero and/or homo sexual activity.
I'm not sure exactly when the term got shifted to the increasingly common usage of "trans inclusive sexual orientation", though I remember running into it as far back as either the late nineties or early oughts.
So, I'm fairly confident that the people back in the sixties or seventies that originated it as something close to an orientation knew that bisexuality existed, and saw pansexual as being something that went beyond it in some way. I've definitely never run across any definitive "first use" where the term was defined in print. Not saying it wasn't, just that none of my reading of the matter back in the day uncovered it, and human sexuality was very present in my mom's collection of books. Our town library even included books on the subject, though less than what my mom had, and way less than I had access to later on.
With that in mind, if you have run across something definitive regarding the origin of the term either in the seventies sense, or its adoption as trans inclusive, I would absolutely love it if you could guide me to it. Not being snarky, not being contrarian, I'd genuinely enjoy learning more about it because it's a subject that's fascinated me since I was old enough to think about sex at all.
This is really interesting and a great contribution to this discussion. I wish whoever was downvoting you would comment to say what they take issue with.
Being a lover of cast iron cookware, I identify as pansexual.
Ooh saucy
Hopefully nothing acidic like tomato sauce though, doesn't mix well with cast iron
Pan-sub identified
I dominate all my dishwasher contents
turn over
"no, my fond is still browning"
I just like the bisexual flag colors better.
Same. That's literally the only reason I say bi and not pan
I am the opposite and prefer the magenta, light blue and yellow to the magenta and dark blue.
Kinda same, and I'm not even bi/pan.
I learned long ago whether someone told me they were pan or bi, it took absolutely zero effort on my part to accept and agree with them.
Sure you're bi/pan, but are you a unicorn, because my fiancée and I really like your vibe.
As a pan/poly guy... Sup?
I don't really know how guy unicorns are targeted? Are they? I've only heard of the term unicorn being applied to women. But, I'm adjacent to the space at best.
Has cucking, becoming more fashionable, increased couples targeting bulls the same way unicorns are? As in toxically.
I suppose it's different, a unicorn is expected to attended to both partners equally. Whereas, a bull isn't really.
This is both off topic, and a Wendy's. I don't expect an answer.
I can be whatever you need me to be ;)
We don't exist just to satisfy hetero couple's threesome fantasies.
I didn't think the /s was necessary... I thought the "we like your vibe" was cliche unicorn hunter speak. I even used the word 'unicorn'.
Anyways I fully agree, hence how I framed it. I fully apologise if I came off as anything other than tongue in cheek.
The fact that is sarcasm doesn't change the fact that your comment suggests that threesomes are the thing you talk about when talking about bi/pan people.
It literally does.
Ah well, allow me to subvert that suggestion.
Expressly and unequivocally, threesomes are not something I particularly talk about when talking to bi/pan people.
Certainly not any more than anyone else. It isn't something I voluntarily suggest we do, it's not something I expressly ask about. Some of my friends have had threesomes, and some of those are bi/pan. So it's not something I've not talked about, it's just not the first thing that comes to mind.
Wait, wait, wait, pansexual is when you have a love for wide screen photography, right?
Stupid sexy panorama
So then graysexual means Ansel Adams?
What do the columns, the stalactite-stalagmites grow from in this analogy.
When a bisexual and a pansexual love each other very much... they grow together :)
omnisexual, beats pansexual.
Agender, neopronoun, and nonbinary identities
Those are still covered under bisexual though. Technically, if you're a woman attracted to nonbinary people, you're heterosexual.
And this is why we invented new and better words.
My understanding is that bisexuals select all partners from both sexes and pansexuals select all partners from all genders
That understanding is wrong.
Bisexual means "homo and hetero sexual". So, "attracted to my own gender and not-my-own gender". Thats the classical definition.
And then people who didn't understand that, invented the world pansexual to mean exactly the same thing.
Do you have a resource to confirm what you're saying? Because homosexual means same sex and heterosexual is opposite sex. Bisexual would be both sexes by that reasoning
"Heteros" means "different", not "opposite"
"hetero" means "different" not "opposite". The source would be any dictionary mentioning the root.
Your snarky comment about better understanding bisexuality and pansexuality does very little for my actual request for resources.
Bisexuals grow from pansexuals dripping on them.
Bi-Bi relationships.
Best explanation I've heard yet.
I just thought pansexuals didn't exclude furries.
What does this even mean?
That they thought "bisexual" excluded furries, and "pansexual" included furries.
Why would anyone…? Huh?
Makes about as much sense as people who think bisexuality excludes trans and enbys
"Bi-" doesn't exclude them, but "pan-" exists to explicitly include them. Those aren't the same thing.
Its a meaningless distinction. We have more important fucking things to fight than whether or not you like old Queer terminology.
I once knew a lady who thought pansexual meant "everything," and specifically actual animals. I had to explain that it's just bisexual but more.
They don’t discriminate, like at all?
The difference is that the pans got the better flag colors.
Hell nah! I use the bi label specifically because of the colors! (And because more people immediately unterstand what it means)
hell nah, the only reason why i don't call myself pan is because the flag colours are ugly
late sunset over a deep ocean vs printer toners
Looks like the same ocean to me. Its just a different time of day.
It was recently pointed out to me that an outfit I have been rocking for years makes it look like I’m trying to be a walking bisexual flag: pink button up over a purple tank top with blue shorts. This was by coincidence do but I love those colors so I was fully prepared to die on the hill that it was the superior flag.
But after refreshing my memory, you right the pan flag looks like three flavors of ice cream stacked atop each other
I think pansexual should be for people who would fuck an alien who has no corollary on the human gender spectrum.
Agree. I would take that alien and consensually do alien things with them.
i'm east coast bi west coast pan, because what the words mean are different on opposite sides of the US
This made my day. If Lemmy had awards I would award this post but awards are pointless. So this comment will do. I laughed so hard at this.
Honestly to me the difference is mostly cultural or vibes, and I just identify with bi vibes more. I feel like the flags encapsulate this difference well
I'm biromantic; I like many different genders. But I most certainly do not like all genders. And those I do like, I do not like equally
Pansexuals just over thought it tbh
Ok, i read the comments and... Now I'm regretting the cruisenart order on Amazon.... That saucepan though... Damn
The only way to truly begin understanding pansexual or bisexual is to be either pansexual or bisexual.
bisexual flowers do exists and theres variations of this too. and then theres mononecious, and unisexual plants. plants are all kinds of "sexuality." depending on the species.(apomixis, vegative growth, root cloning.) plants have all the "sexuals" that animals can dream of.
This is so weird for me. I thought my app was broken (and I'm thinking it is in a niche way) because suddenly almost no posts were loading. It turns out you just spammed a ton of posts, and they specifically won't load for me, but all other posts are fine. Weird.
My interpretation:
If you're bisexual, it's about presented gender. If you're pansexual, it's about equipment.
Bisexual: attracted to those of their own gender and different genders
and panssexuals?
Sauté?
I'm bisexual so I really only feel qualified to assert that definition.
I believe that pansexuals are attracted despite gender. I dunno, I can't tell the difference between the two. I'm just old and bisexual feels like it fits better for me.
I kinda thought pansexual was more open to the whole lgbtqi+ and bi people were more just into the lgb parts of the acronym.
Nah, that's the annoying myth that bi people hate. My partner is trans, and transitioned during our relationship, and I always joke that as a lazy bisexual this is perfect for me.
Really it's just old people (millenials) call it bi, and you young whipper-snappers with your eight track tapes get all pedantic about the sound of the word.
The bisexual erasure's final form: generational.
Yeah, generational, it grew branches. The phonetics of "bi" matter and the language is evolving. But we totally get the Bi doesn't mean two genders for that generation of queers that reached for that word.
I'm into more than two, but not all genders.
"bisexual" doesn't mean "men and women". It means "homo and hetero", as in "those of my gender and not of my gender".
Which is exactly what "pansexual" also means.
Two genders, eh. Everyone who isn't gay is attracted to every gender they don't belong to, eh.
That is the original meaning of those words. Yes. You might notice they're not exactly the most modern terms.
ahh see now you have retreated to "original" meaning. So by that metric, everyone who's heart is light (ie "gay") is attracted to everyone who is their gender.
I'm into My own gender and some other genders but not all other genders. I'm not pan, because I'm not into all genders.
Yeah as a trans woman I've never seen someone identify as bi and thought "I shouldn't hit on her" because of that label. And if I also found men attractive I'd almost certainly use that label.