99p Next Day delivery! Hurry ends in ...
  1. Being Pansexual

    mrs average [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 687
    • Joined: 18 Oct 2012

    lillithlibby wrote:

    Mr.Strudwick wrote:

    Mrs Average,

    a rough definition would be someone who's sexually attracted to others regardless of of their gender: man, woman, transexual, whatever. It's sometimes referred to as being gender blind. hope that helps :)

    That's how how I feel about relationships in general. Its who they are as a person that makes them attractive not their parts :-)

    I actually agree. Relationships are about how you connect with someone bo what they look like.

    rose hip [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 1065
    • Joined: 19 Aug 2010

    Avrielle_Aniko wrote:

    Bumpity Bump!

    Curoius to know if Bisexuals are only attracted to men and women, or if they find attraction to transgenders too.... Or if that is just a pansexual thing...

    Seems like a dumb question in a way, but I'd be interested to know..

    It all depends on how you define these labels. In my experience, some pans can get a bit elitist and dismissive of bi's too. Technically, I'm not 'allowed' to be pansexual (according to some) because I'm generally not attracted to MtF CD/TVs, but that's not because of parts. It's because I don't relate at all to some common ideas/expressions of 'feminine' like make-up, lace panties, high heels, fussy hair, or hairlessness everywhere else. I don't think of myself as having a masculine side because I like Scaletrix and rugby. Scaletrix pwns the pants off of Barbie and rugby is just awesome all around.

    I just see it in terms of people and you make the best use of whatever parts, characteristics and preferences you have to please each other and have a great time together. Which fits some people's definitions of pan.

    Mostly though, the older I get the less I care about labels. I like lots of different types of women. I like lots of different types of men. I like myself. That's all that really matters.

    miss poet [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Captain
    • Posts: 35
    • Joined: 27 May 2013

    Avrielle_Aniko wrote:

    I wonder how many pansexuals are out there, but don't know it. Pansexual is not a common household term and is easily over-looked. And Bisexual is a term that can fit them and most are reasonably happy with that, or unaware of alternatives. "I like men and women equally, I'm bisexual."

    But to be perfectly honest, I wasn't so keen on the term bisexual when I became sexually mature. I just used it as I wasn't aware of pansexuality. But when I found out the term pansexual, (I think it was on here) I found that it just suited me far better and I prefer using it. I can't quite figure out why, but it was a sort of relief to find a word that described my sexual orientation that wasn't in the three main catagories (Straight, Bisexual, Gay/Lesbian).

    I really, can't describe that any further, I don't think. But it just felt 'right'... if that makes any sense at all.

    One thing I don't know is: Are Bisexuals only attracted to men and women? Or do they find attraction with cross-dressers, trans-genders etc too??

    Because I can find attraction in cross-dressers/trans/etc. Not at all exclusively, but it is like, any gender/cross-gender has the potential for me to look twice at.

    All is pretty much equal to me... though I admit I have had more male partners than female partners in my time. But straight men are easier to find than non-straight women, I suppose. Especially around here...

    My bi friends would only ever date a man or woman never a cross dresser...

    scarab9 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 207
    • Joined: 1 May 2012

    as above, check out any local LGBT nights. The point of that term was meant to be all inclusive and you'll find others who are pansexual at those nights.

    rose hip [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 1065
    • Joined: 19 Aug 2010

    Avrielle_Aniko wrote:

    Hmmm... Interesting!

    RoseHip - I wonder... Do you need to relate to the femine side? I mean, heterosexual couples are generally the man likes manly stuff and the woman likes womanly stuff. Why wouldn't it work the other way around? Or is it just something you don't feel comfortable with? (Which is fine, of course.)

    They say Opposites Attract, afterall. ^.^

    I'm not a big fan of labels identifying yourself, but rather, identifying yourself with labels - to an extent.

    But I was just curious in case there was a strong and fast rule.

    There ARE strong and fast rules. Too many to count and most of them contradict each other. I don't know why so many people take up arms on this. I'm not even sure why it's an issue at all.

    Re your example - If both people in a couple have strong ideas about g

    Janny [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Brigadier
    • Posts: 584
    • Joined: 17 May 2011

    Stick a bit of garlic in the pan and off you go. For extra steamy nights add a whole chilli.

    rose hip [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 1065
    • Joined: 19 Aug 2010

    egads. it ate my post. all of it. i put a chunk of time into it too because i know at least one person (you, Avrielle) will read it.

    Re your example - If both people in a couple have strong ideas (articulated or not) about gender roles, they may take on opposite roles but still be in agreement on what those roles are and who does what. Matching up biology with convention only matters to the extent they want/need it to. I wouldn't work well in that sort of relationship though because I'm not geared towards gender roles in the first place.

    Attraction for me is all about the person and personality. (Which is why I get ticked off when pans inadvertently write as it that territory were theirs alone.) Generally speaking, the people I tend to be attracted to aren't terribly fussed about appearance and tend to prefer spending their time (and money) on other things. Gender's sort of incidental to it all.

    So it's really just that the things like hair and make-up which CD/TGs tend to adopt to signal 'woman' are the very things which tend to indicate a woman I'm less likely to be compatible with and attracted to.

    That's me. By some definitions I'm slotted into the pan camp, while others say I couldn't possibly be. Aren't labels fun?

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.