Bi-sexulaity currently taking a kicking over at the Guardigan

[Bebstar123]

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/14/the-pansexual-revolution-how-sexual-fluidity-became-mainstream#comments

"Nick, a 22-year-old physics and philosophy masters student at the University of York, initially thought he was bisexual as a teenager, but also now feels “pansexual” better fits his view that attraction isn’t really about gender. “I just find characteristics generally about people attractive"... a bi person might find tall guys attractive, and short girls. But he tends to fancy tall people, regardless of whether they are male or female.

As a bi sexual female who thinks gender is social BS, I had been under the impression that bisexuality related to both sex attraction. Apparently not, thanks random 22 year old bloke, thanks for sorting that out for me.

I don't mind which term people use but I find the implication that some sexual orientations are better than others a bit galling.

My friend described it as liking the person not the gender! It seems to imply heterosexual (or homosexual) people are hung up on the sex but pan sexual people care about something deeper.

But heterosexual and homosexual still choose the person because they like/love the person! I didn't marry dh just because he was a man!

I actually appreciate ReallyBoring's perspective. Sex is so personal and people are so reluctant to speak honestly that we kind of assume that it's a fairly universal experience - everyone wants it, everyone who has access to it has it 3 times a week and enjoys it - so it's good to understand the ways in which people vary from this perceived norm.

For a while there, about 20 years ago, it was kind of out that 'media sex' didn't exist. And that everyone, or at least most people, were just bumbling along. The boaster at school was nothing more than that, and your five times a night bloke was a liar.

And then it appeared to all get eclipsed by image/social media.

In the world of Tinder, where a date is decided by nothing more than a touched up image, it's little wonder that people want to put any strong preferences into labels, as both a useful shorthand and a means of deflecting tossers.

It's very lowering to think that you have to actually give yourself a label that means you only want to shag people you are emotionally attached to, as a means of differentiating yourself from what you think is everyone else shagging themselves senseless with people they don't know or like!

Italiangreyhound Yes, totally agree, I’ve also heard it described in an “I’m soooooo non-discriminatory” way.
And as a bi woman, my response that I’ll shag either men or women but I like to know which in advance somehow didn’t measure up.

Ok so how is bi different from pan exactly? You sleep with men and or women. Or no one. That’s it isn’t it?

Why does every chuffing kiddie wink need their own special word for what they do in bed? We dont care! We just don’t care who you have sex with as long as it’s not illegal or with an animal (possibly illegal but I’m not Googling it to check).

Whilst surely bisexual for naive people like myself means nobody Is ruled out as a potential partner on the basis of sex I understand pansexual is supposedly more inclusive of trans sexuals. Bi sexual people might not be woke enough. They might just fancy ‘men’ and ‘women’ but not lady boys for example. So bisexuality may mean you’re a a king of TERF or Trans Exclusionary Bisexual so TEB basically

One of the guys in the comments says he is “pan” because he likes tall people, both male and female “full stop”. If someone likes tall males, and short females, then that person would be bi. Bonkers.

Datun is right - it used to be an accepted thing that different people had different levels of sex drive. Advice columns were full of letters from couples who loved each other but who felt “mismatched” sexually.

I think the change was that, back then, sexism reigned so it was considered unremarkable for a woman to have a low sex drive and a man to have a high one. This was very much the driver for the “lie back and think of England” school of relationships. Every once and a while you’d see an advice column letter from a woman whose sex drive was higher than her husband’s and the general air was that there was something wrong with him - as in “how can a man be not entirely dick-lead?”

Somehow, when we got around to acknowledging that women can like sex and be visually stimulated too, and that LGB were people too, a whole porn-soaked swathe of society decided that men and women alike are all indiscriminate horndogs up for anything porn teaches them all the time, OR they’re one of dozens of “gender identities” that help them say no.

So basically, I think the change is we considered ourselves to be saying no until we said yes. The youngsters now consider themselves to be saying yes* unless they’ve got cast iron but still acceptably “inclusive” way to say no.

*This is because, like all 20-somethings since the dawn of time, they believe they’ve invented sex.

I recently read a post on Facebook by someone very proud of their gender-non-conforming family. They themselves were pansexual, and had a trans child and a pansexual one. They received congratulations in the comments on their extremely "evolved" family.... and there's the crunch. Among young people, and even not so young, as this person must be in their late thirties at least to have older kids, it's considered the height of enlightenment to be as non-conforming as possible. It's something to aspire to.

People like me, well, we're just boring old vanilla! (I'm a 67 year old heterosexual widow, mother, grandmother, who is not sexually active and has no plans to be such.)

ComputerSaysMo

As a 16 year old who knew everything I had a chastening takedown from my Granddad exactly along the lines of young people think they invented sex, but yet here you are... I guess they will just have to work it out for themselves. It's interesting the way that so many people want to be seen to be interesting and different yet choose such tribal identities.
As my teen self may have said 'I want to be like everyone else. Different!'

And yet here we are - middle aged and not all ‘special and unique’. Aw diddums, they have it all coming - and won’t it be a shock when they get to the age when they just want to come home from work, get into comfy clothes and sit with the cat and watch Masterchef whilst balancing a bowl of chips on their belly.

Ah, but isn’t that why now old-enough-to-be-their-Grandad Pete Townsend famously sang, “Hope I die before I get old”?

Ah, the days when every year seemed so long and 40 so far away you could actually think that dying before then gave you plenty of time do do all the important things —like shag—.

(Ah it’s likely Daltry singing it, isn’t it? Soz. Both are old enough to be my dad.)

So basically, I think the change is we considered ourselves to be saying no until we said yes. The youngsters now consider themselves to be saying yes* unless they’ve got cast iron but still acceptably “inclusive” way to say no.

Yes and I think it’s so sad that young people seem to think the only polite way to have a sexual boundary is to give yourself an identity that allows you to bow out.
How many young people are having sex they aren’t into simply because they think it’s ‘what people do’.

I think it’s very dangerous to set the tone that the norm is up for everything with anyone.

We desperately need to teach young people that sex should only happen when both people enthusiastically want it.

Having said that I can totally see why living in this porn culture world having the label there is helpful for people wanting to space from it and a way to step back from it. It’s just really awful that we need it.

Pansexual is just the trendy new way to say bisexual. "Pansexuals" get all bent out of shape if you say that but this is reality. It's a political thing. You can't say you are "bisexual" anymore if you are pretending there are more than 2 sexes so you have to say "pansexual" so you say you want to sleep with "all the sexes", I mean "genders", lol
So saying you are "bisexual" becomes a transphobic hate crime, or something.

So why is there still even a B in LGBT? Don't ask me, I just live here

Pansexual is just the trendy new way to say bisexual.

And I thought a couple of years back bisexual was just the trendy new way to say heterosexual when none of the kids wanted to own up to the utter mundanity of just being a boring straight rather than a fabulous gay or an adventurous bi.

I'd be willing to bet that many of the pansexuals are, yet again, just heterosexuals looking to spice up their identity.

I generally self-define as bisexual but I think pansexual is actually a better label for me because my attraction also encompasses transgender people and non-binary people, whereas I think bisexuality is more about being attracted to cisgender (apologies if anyone hates that word, not sure what else to use in this situation) men and women.

I don’t think about it much because I’m now married and don’t navel gaze about my own sexuality, but I can definitely see why lots of people who, like me, grew up before transgenderism and non-binaryism were widely discussed and understood would have identified as bisexual in the past but as pansexual now. That’s not to say bisexuality isn’t real or valid, because it is very obviously both. But lots of people’s understanding of their sexuality develops as they grow up, and I think this is just an example of that.

but I think pansexual is actually a better label for me because my attraction also encompasses transgender people and non-binary people, whereas I think bisexuality is more about being attracted to cisgender (apologies if anyone hates that word, not sure what else to use in this situation) men and women.

But where are you getting that from??????

There is nowhere in the definition of bisexual that would say you wouldn’t fancy trans people.

There are only two sexes, you have the potential to fancy someone of either of them.

Some bisexual people may only fancy non trans people, but that’s not because they are bisexual.

I can definitely see why lots of people who, like me, grew up before transgenderism and non-binaryism were widely discussed and understood would have identified as bisexual in the past but as pansexual now.

I suspect that being attracted to trans people is a minority taste. Naturally this should not be discussed, or even contemplated, for fear of transphobia.

People only think that bisexual people exclude trans people because someone came along and made up pansexual.

It’s not actually what the word means.

You can’t go around changing other peoples identities by proxy.

I couldn’t say I’m not heterosexual I’m ‘blooby’ because straight people only fancy people of the opposite sex who conform strictly to gender stereotypes and I fancy men in eyeliner therefore not heterosexual.

That’s not what heterosexual means, it simply means the people you fancy are of the opposite sex to you.

Bi sexual simply means you have the pontential to fancy people of either sex, it doesn’t state whether that person is trans or not.

There are only two sexes, you have the potential to fancy someone of either of them.

Quite. It's like having a "type" is now being confused with having a sexuality.

But where are you getting that from?????

I can only speak to my own experiences, but that’s been my understanding of the distinction - that bisexuality doesn’t include trans / non-binary people whereas pansexuality does.

I accept that there are people identifying as bisexual who don’t make that distinction though (like me, really), just as there will be people identifying as bisexual who do. Maybe distinguishing between them is meaningless. I think it’s quite hard to say for sure without inadvertently speaking for a whole group, which obviously none of us want to do. I don’t think these are hard and fast labels with agreed definitions, so perhaps it helps to have more options rather than fewer, so people can determine for themselves what feels comfortable for them.

I suspect that being attracted to trans people is a minority taste.

I think that probably depends on what definition of trans you’re using.

I can only speak to my own experiences, but that’s been my understanding of the distinction - that bisexuality doesn’t include trans / non-binary people whereas pansexuality does.

But that’s not the definition of the word bisexual is it?

We are talking about definitions of words. Bisexual just means you fancy people of both sexes.

You CAN speak for a whole group when you are talking about definitions. Otherwise identities are meaningless.

What is the point of having words if the words can change their meanings depending on who’s speaking them?

True enough (about the definition of trans). That's always the case in discussions in this area isn't it?

We are talking about definitions of words. Bisexual just means you fancy people of both sexes.

The issue is, I’m not sure everyone agrees with this. The meanings of words aren’t immutable. Language evolves. And, most importantly, it isn’t language which creates identities; rather, people whose identities aren’t represented by language force that language to change or create new language to express their meaning.

I think that’s what’s happening here. For whatever reason, there is a group of people who no longer feel that the word ‘bisexual’ applies to them, so new language has been created to reflect that. Then people like me mosey along and feel like actually, Label B is a better reflection of my understanding of myself than Label A, so I choose to adopt it. Others in my position might do the opposite. It’s messy and irregular, but that’s what language is.

That doesn’t mean everyone immediately knows what the differences between these groups are, or that there is no overlap, because language doesn’t work that way. Categorising people isn’t easy and never has been, not least when discussing sexual identity (which is very personal, and not always predictable, and not static).

What is the point of having words if the words can change their meanings depending on who’s speaking them?

This is a much wider philosophical question! So much art and literature is an exploration of this exact dilemma. Its certainly not novel to this particular debate.