Talk:Pansexuality/Archive 1

message: Seeing that the article ( and this talk page ) is a bit of a mess at the moment I decided I would try to reorganise/format it so that it is a bit more readable and consistent. In particular, the article currently mixes claims in the "it is the case as" and "some believe that" form rather sporadically. The format is also inconsistent throughout the page, which adds to the confusion. Please feel free to revert/edit any of the presentational changes I make if you feel content is lost. J.Ring 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spring Cleaning

message: *I have no comments on that theory, other than the article (if found online) could have been linked to: LinkName... additionally - logging in before posting and signing your post with --~~~~; (as is the prefered practice for talk pages.)
:--Sarah (Kuro) 14:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  arg! 

message: by Peter Boom
Human beings, by nature must be, "pansexual" (from the Greek, Pan = all) a complete sexual person. We all possess various sexual possibilities 
generally classified as heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, autoerotic, 
fetishist, sado-masochistic, etc. These tendencies in our nature can come 
out at any time, according to the development of each individual. Children 
are born polimorphoperverse; the curiosity of discovery leads them to play 
with their mothers, touch their genitals, masturbate and investigate their 
excretia. Later, as they develop, they play games of "doctor" as they 
explore the bodies and functions of their friends. All this is perfectly 
natural. 
During puberty their ambivalence is natural and undeniable as they adapt to life as an adult. Only later does their sexual proclivity become more 
crystallized and definite, although the range of options remain open. These 
options are partially repressed or are made taboo, according to the society 
in which they live. 
There's a tribe in Borneo in which the women live with their children in a 
huge hut, while men live apart from them. In Kenya there's a nomadic tribe of proud long-living people who have the custom of coupling boys of twelve 
in a ritual of blood-mixing. These male couples remain faithful to each 
other all their lives, wandering far off together, returning to the tribe 
once or twice a year in order to procreate with the women. There are many examples, like the Siwans from Africa, the Sambia in New Guinea, where nearly all males engage in both hetero- and homo-sexual intercourse, but we can leave these to the anthropologists. 
The term "pansexuality" exists already, but with a different meaning to that which I apply to it, indicating the concept to which sexual instinct is the basis of all human behaviour (Freud). 
It is important not to repress any of our pansexuality and to live it 
freely, using good sense. The repression and banning of natural instinct 
creates frustration, often resulting in antisocial and violent behaviour. 
Good sense is embodied in the expression: "Don't do unto others what you 
would not have them do unto you!" 
Definition of pansexuality: 
Pansexuality includes all kinds of sexuality that can exist in a human 
being, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, transgender, heterosexual, 
tendencies that may prevail either permanently or occasionally.
Peter Boom.
 
The word Pansexualism is explained by Professor Haeberle in his Critical Dictionary in the following way:
"Pansexualism. (sometimes also "pansexuality". From gr. "pan": all) All-embracing sexual love. An attitude or a philosophy which is based on the belief that the human sexual potential can and should be directed towards everybody and everything. At one time, the term "pansexualism" was also used for the theory that all human behavior is somehow sexually motivated. This theory is no longer considered valid. Today the terms "pansexualism" and "pansexuality" are often employed by certain advocates of sexual liberation who want to convey the idea that the present sexual and gender roles of men and women are too confining, and that, therefore, an all-embracing sexuality should accept the entire spectrum of sexual orientations and deliberately ignore all other conventional distinctions."
:I really don't quite see what the above does on a talk page, however, as I am a bit new on wikipedia I'll stick it in a separate section rather than removing it. J.Ring 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Theory of Pansexuality

message: * dont merge separte issue that pangender. Pangender discribes your sex and Pansexuality describes your sexuality which are differnt --Prof Jolly 12:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Canaen 07:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Hard to cite sources on a concept that mostly became vocal and organized thanks to fandom communities and furries on the internet. --70.227.187.48 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there were more contributions from other communities other than just the 'fandom' and 'furry' communities. Disinclination 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that I do not think the second reference (to the Leather Online website in the "Pansexual Sex" section) is a credible source. I would like to see someone who has actually done some research on the attitudes of Pansexuals towards sexual acts. It seems to me that there could be pansexuals opposed to acts like BDSM simply for the reasons of power discrepancy, enforcement of gender roles etc... Please, something more credible. I won't remove it, but it needs to be improved, perhaps with a more detailed discussion. --Elecid 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tough 

message: Although Wikipedia asks for us to be bold in editing, I'd like to put this up. http://lauragoodwin.org/pansexual.htm Is a link to someone who, indeed pansexual, wrote an essay about the problems in their community. It reads, "Pansexuals honor all sexes and all safe-sane-consensual expressions of adult sexuality,". I was wondering if it would be possible, and correct, to use this for the citation needed in the section Pansexual Sex. Disinclination 00:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it.. well, awhile ago. Disinclination 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While interesting and provokative in a positive manner I'd question the background and motivation of the author. The article is clearly focussed on BDSM play rather than sex in itself, and the author uses a definition of pansexuality that is clearly centered around people's 'kinkplay orientation' and social/scene comfortably, as opposed to their sexual orientation. This appears to conflict with both the article text and most commonly accepted defition of pansexual. --Myfanwy 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Citation 

message: I was just reading the Quagmire page, the one from Family Guy, and it says he is pansexual. I disagree with this. The only two mentions of Quagmire being with someone who is not female, is when he returned from the Phillipines (when Brian was smelling him, and Quagmire insisted that the third member of their orgy was female, not male), and when he was hitting on a transsexual (whom he 'rejected' after he found out she was pre-op). This implies that, at the very least, he is not bisexual. Both instances gave off the feeling that he was frightened by being with a male, although the second example may mean he will sleep with a post-op transsexual. Also, the over all theme throughout the whole show is Quagmire getting with as many females as he can ... along with Lois. I am curious as to what you all think. Also, other mentions in his article were necrophilia, zoophilia, which I don't think would link him to pansexuality. Disinclination 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quagmire 

message: I think that the sentence involving that pansexuals are more comfortable with PDA should be removed. I mean, it is all a matter of preference, is it not? If you think about it, it is. I mean, it all depends upon their own personal levels of public affection, and some people, while they may be as open to sexuality as pansexuality is (sorry for generalizations), they may not be as open to PDA. Just food for thought. Disinclination 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDA 

message: pansexuality and omnisexuality are different from each other, as omnisexuality would also include zoophilic, necrophilic and pedophilic desires which pansexuality clearly does not, as it is human-oriented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.95.128.194 (talk • contribs) .
:I am curious to know where you got such an assumption from. Could you cite some sources, please? The reference will remain on the page until otherwise. Disinclination 00:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omnisexuality 

message: so how is pansexual different from bisexual? 67.172.61.222 05:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a lot of people don't subscribe to a binary gender viewpoint - being 'genderqueer' or 'fluid' or anything like that. Also, what about pre-op transexuals? That has a pretty clear definition between gender and physical sex. Like, someone who is bisexual will be exclusively attracted to males and females, whereas someone who's pansexual would also include those who don't fit in to one category. --Ryttu3k 07:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current definition of pansexual in the article has made me have to re-read it several times to finally understand it (if someone could rewrite it, it would be better or give some sort of simpler summary). A pansexual does not believe one is confined by their (sometimes original) biological gender. Bisexuals, on the other hand, only alternate between two set genders, female and male. Pansexuality does not. Disinclination 07:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain that again? I still don't get it. Are pansexuals genderqueer bisexuals?~ZytheTalk to me! 15:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above arguments of what a pansexual is. Pansexuals are not exclusively attracted to someone's biological gender. Like Ryttu3k said, bisexuals are still based upon the male and females genders, but pansexuals do not make that distinction. Someone who is a pre-op transgender going from male to female will absolutely believe they are female, but to someone who isn't pansexual, will see them as the male sex in body and/or mind. Disinclination 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are more than two sexes and certainly more than two genders (take Third gender, for example). Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am afraid that the world is a lot more complicated than you were brought up to think. --80.171.77.169 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  there are only two genders and three combinations 

message: Political correctness + really horny people = pansexual
*Thank you for your poinient and valuable addition to this article, O Anonymous. You have provided an excellent example of the ignorance and fear that all suffering and oppression stem from. (Besides, a more accurate joke might be something like peace-and-love hippies + really horny people = pansexual.) Actually, while this article is fairly decent, if someone is confused, they should try talking to someone who describes themselves as pansexual who may be able to give insight. (Not that our Anonymous friend read the article at all anyway.) 70.16.216.119 07:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A hahaha 

message: Could someone add to the main page a distinction between Pansexuality and Queer?  Personally I understand 'Queer' to express fluidity of sexual orientation across the whole spectrum and to embrace fluidity of sexual orientation through time.  So far I don't see the difference between this and Pansexuality. Bethgranter 17:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it was slang. But Atom is right. And next time, ask if you want the modern/slang version, or no. Thanks. :) Disinclination 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that "Pansexuality" is merely associated with humans is putting a limitation on the term. Where does it say that it does not include attraction to animals or inanimate objects? Also, if we're talking about humans, remember that children are humans as well. So are dead bodies. Let's just be frank and say what being "Pansexual" really means. And that is, simply bi-sexual. Jtpaladin 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is insufficient evidence given, if animals are truely pansexual, in that a pansexual is someone who, quite simply, is not attracted to someone of a particular gender, or care what their gender is at all. Bisexuality deals with females and males. Some people do not see themselves as female, or male... or both (albeit rarely, I'd think). And what about transsexuals? This is what pansexuality is, not attracted to someone because of their biological gender. And why do you bring up paedophilia and necrophilia? Those are fetishes, not sexual orientations. Also, if you can find evidence of pansexual animals in the wild (and not just special cases), we'd gladly put it up. Disinclination 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you, Disinclination. It is the refusal to differentiate that defines the pan from the bi sexual. I don't think that it would be possible for an animal to be pansexual, since  (although it is just my hunch) it has more to do with conditioning and it may be a more intellectual development than biological/physical. I am open to being disproved.--Elecid 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pansexuality = Queer? 

message: I've read the article a few times but I think I need clarification. Is a pansexual essentially a bi person who is also attracted to inter/transexuals? Or is it a more post-modern way of saying bisexual? I sound very ignorant, but I'm not trying to be rude. Is it a subcategory of bisexual? ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a person who does not mind the sex of the person at all. Yes, it does resemble bisexuality, but it is not the same. As many people have already pointed out, the difference between a bisexual person and a pansexual is the fact that bisexuals are attracted to people within the male/female binary. However, not all people identify with said binary. This may be confusing, but it is a fact that there are people who see their sexual and gender identity as fluid, or have a gender/sexual identity that is not covered by the terms "male" or "female". Pansexuals are different from bisexuals in the fact that they can love a person regardless of their sex, meaning that the people they fall in love with can be male, female, neither, third gender, transsexual, something in-between, etc.  --80.171.77.169 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain this to me? 

message: Of the two references currently in the article:
#One is a dictionary definition
#The second focuses primarily on a group of students at one US high school.  It is a seven page article that only includes the word pansexual twice, and both times are just in a list of terms.  Even this reference does not support the sentence that it follows.  The sentence claims that the article was "controversial", but the reference is to the article itself.  Any claim that the article created any controversy is not backed up by the reference and would seem to be the personal opinion or original research of the Wikipedian who added the statement.
Most of the claims in the article are not supported by either of the above references.  The article also abounds with weasel words such as "Some say..."  These need to be replaced with more definitive language stating who claims this.
Because of the above problems, I am tagging the article as needing better referencing and clean-up.  Johntex\talk 02:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs clean-up and better references