Pansexuality and Asexuality

They more feel like horny and frigid. (from sexual aspect of all or none)

One is open to love in any form other is not interested in love at all... of course talking about romantic love.

If you leave romantic love and sex out of equotation then they are same... everyone is the same.

That is my opinion tho'.

 

Well, I think the key difference that makes them distinguishable is that a pansexual person can feel sexual attraction whereas an asexual person cannot

 

I can't think romantic love and sexuality apart. If you take sexuality away they would be just another friend you have instead of a boyfriend.

Friend - Friend with Benefits - Lover.

Friend and lover are two edges of my love scale. The way I feel about my lover and my friends are very different. I might have romantic feeling toward a friend with benefits but never the other way around. I missed some great guys because of this. They were friends and I couldn't and still can't see them something more than that.

 

I suppose I can understand on a personal level. For a long time, I identified as bisexual since it was easier, but I really feel that I'm pansexual. Although I can be potentially attracted to anyone (not everyone - anyone. I do have people that I feel I am only friends with), sexual attraction is something that isn't as intense for me as romantic attraction. Sometimes I wonder if I am asexual, as I experience mainly romantic attraction, and rarely experience sexual attraction outside of someone that I am romantically attracted to. That's when I begin to wonder if I'm demisexual. Now, I'm beginning to wonder if that's even what you meant at all.

 

TL;DR - skip to last paragraph.

Okay so imagine this... A person can be attracted to and fall in love with another person, without ever thinking about sex. But that doesn't necessarily mean that sex is out of the equation, i mean... To some (myself included), all those "kinky" stuff, are just, something else that you might want to do with someone who you love, it's not detrimental to how you should feel for said person. Like, yeah, sure being attracted to someone because of how they look is a thing, but that still doesn't absolutely mean that sex has to be involved. Anyway, i'm rambling...

Have this one guy i know who is asexual. So to my comment about him looking sexy (cuz he actually does!) he said and i cite: "i don't see myself as being sexy, more like cute"... Anyway, so my idea is that, there is a very blurry line between falling for someone because of their personality, looks, body, or just for pure sex. It's like, where do you draw the line?! And is the line "hard set" or can it be "moved" like, a non asexual person being "okay" with being in a relationship with an asexual or an asexual agreeing to do some kinky stuff (no intercorse) for the sake of the person they love?

As a pansexual (or so i guess?) i take "sex" and put it into a "box" labeled "fun activities". It's simply not something that i think about when i fall for someone. I mean, hugs and kisses and maybe... some more kinky stuff is fun and all but... sex, meh. Just to add... not thinking with your "lower brain" when falling for someone is something that i personally like, since i can gauge said person more clearly/easily and therefore not end up with someone crappy just because i think that sex with them would be fun. Pansexual - master race! <- joking.

 

That kind of makes no sense to me. With the same logic, you could say that there is no such thing as friends with benefits, and every 'fwb' situation is technically a romantic boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. After all, if the only thing that separates a romance from a friendship to you is sex, then....what's the difference?? Many people would disagree with that, like many people also have romantic boyfriend/girlfriend relationships to which sex is never there. The love for a friend is different than a crush/romantic love feeling.

I don't like sex, but it doesn't make me incapable of romance, nor does it mean that the feeling of a friend and a crush feels the same.

 

Im with you, im pansexual but i only feel sexul and romantic twords males and only romantic twords females

---------- Post added 14th Oct 2014 at 08:09 AM ----------

Im with you too, i like girls i just dont feel sexual tword them. But that does not mean i cant love them

 

That would imply that asexuals have the potential to be romantically involved with anyone, regardless of gender. Is that true? I don't actually know.

 

Hmm.. You mean that, the pansexual doesn't care about gender, feeling it doesn't matter, where the asexual thinks so too but doesn't want to have sex? Something like that?

Though, asexual people can be romantic towards a specific gender. But I think a "panromantic asexual" could be quite close to a pansexual.

 

But... being panromantic doesn't mean you're asexual, how... whaaat? panromantic asexual?! This makes no sense at all... (oT-T)尸

 

Some separate romantic and sexual attraction. =) Imagine someone who doesn't want to have sex with anyone, but is willing to be romantic (hugs, cuddling, ..) with anyone. How would you call that person? =)

Some say you can't separate the two, some say you can. But that's a different discussion haha. :lol:

 

Dude, it's like, exactly what i typed above, romantic and sexual separation but... Yeah, i would call a person like what you described, an asexual. (」゜ロ゜)」

And i would call someone who is open to the idea of doing "kinky" stuff, but only with someone close, without actual intercorse... pansexual. (or panromantic) ＼(^▽^＠)ノ

 

Wait, wait, wait. I think I put wrong term in there...

Let me try to clarify situation. What I had in mind with someone I have only physical relationship... do they called f..buddies? I can feel somethings for them even I don't consider them my lovers or friends.

Maybe that will sound odd coming from a guy who had incesteous relationships in the past but having sex with friends feels like incest to me as it would for your average person.

I hope that makes some sense now. :icon_redf

 

Hmm what?
By definition, a panSEXUAL is a person who is sexually interested in other people regardless of gender.
Typically, romantic and sexual attraction come together. So we often refer to.. a heterosexual for example, as someone who feels both sexual and romantic attraction towards the opposite sex (or gender). But if not, like if that heterosexual person only feels sexual attraction towards women, then he'll still be heterosexual, but not heteroromantic. He might feel romantic attraction towards men, and then he'll be a homoromantic heterosexual (don't think this is common aha).

Therefore, an asexual (who does not feel any sexual attraction whatsoever), can be heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic or panromantic.
So as Quem said, a pansexual ins't basically a panromantic asexual because a panSEXUAL does feel sexual attraction.

It's not the same thing.

And a pansexual is NOT a panromantic.
If you're panromantic, you're asexual. Because as sexual and romantic attraction usually come together, people don't need to use the term "romantic". It is usually used by asexual people to make the distinction, cause in most cases a sexual person is romantic, so they don't need to precise the romantic bit.
So to sum up only asexual people will call themselves something-romantic. Sexual people won't need to precise, except if they only feel romantic attraction towards another sepcefic sex (or gender).
Hope you see what I mean, cause it can seem like I'm contradicting myself aha.

If you don't feel much sexual attraction/desire, and only think of it as a "fun activiy" and as "meh", then you are unsual (statistically), because most sexual people (pansexuals included) don't seem to regard it this way.

Sorry for the long message, but really, I might be a panromantic asexual, so that's why I wanted to give you my way of seeing all this.

 

I don't agree with this and for reasons beyond my control (have way more fun things to do) i'll just not bother arguing my point and say that "labels", as they exist, not for us, but for the "comfort" of heterosexuals, are overcomplicating things to a point where i personally simply would like to ignore identifying as anything, than rather, struggling to "fit" into a specific pre-defined category.

 

Well yeah, I went according to labels (the labels you used btw aha).
And I explained that the "romantic" term was used by asexuals to give more precision. But obviously, in the same way, a pansexual can feel panromantic, but it's no use in precising, cause those two usually come together.

However I do agree to some extent, but I believe that if you're going to use a label (like simply saying pansexual), it's best to use it as correctly as possible so you don't cause any confusion.

:smilewave

 

Okay then, label me... I like guys but can "settle" for a girl, not into oral but can consider doing kinky stuff, whilst at the same time sex is not something i even think about when / if i fall for someone.

Please, do explain. (҂⌣̀_⌣́)