Yea, it’s obviously not about who you get the hots for, at that point. In both cases, everyone’s on the menu.
The commonly used distinction is, that pan is often described as „gender-blind“, meaning, gender has no role in attraction. A guy is hot, because he’s hot, not because he’s a guy, while this can be very much the case with omni.
But yes, it’s a very small distinction. It doesn’t make enough of a difference for most people. There’s a reason very few people identify as omni. But let them have their fun, if that small distinction matters to them. There’s no reason to police labels.
Sure, I’m not going to police it. If someone wants to call themselves omni I’m not going to tell them they’re wrong. They’re free to do whatever they want. I’m just saying it does seem to make sense to have a different term, beside just having fun.
For example though, I’m a straight man, but I’m still attracted to some more masculine appearing women. I’m just attracted to who I’m attracted to. There doesn’t need to be an additional term for straight people who can be attracted to both masculine and feminine appearing people of the opposite sex. That’d be absurd, and I’m sure the omni people would agree.
Thats what it sounds like “omni” is trying to do. You’re attracted to anyone, regardless of gender, which is pan. You just have a preference for particular gendered appearances. That’s still pan, but you have preferences for appearances, like everyone else. We don’t need a word for every single persons preferences or we wouldn’t be able to have a conversation about it. We don’t need a word for people attracted to people with tattoos, for example.
There doesn’t need to be an additional term for straight people who can be attracted to both masculine and feminine appearing people of the opposite sex.
No, the word for that is straight. But there are certainly words for people who are attracted to masculinity or femininity, regardless of gender. And of course there’s having a type. But that’s got nothing to do with sexuality. Pan folks can have types, too.
You’re attracted to anyone, regardless of gender, which is pan.
Well no. Omnisexuality is explicitly not regardless of gender. The gender is being regarded. That’s the whole point of the distinction. It’s just that all of them are being regarded. That has nothing to do with expression, type or appearance. The attraction to different genders might just be different, before type even plays a role.
At least, that’s how I understand it. I’m pan. I barely get how one can care about gender at all. I cannot speak out of experience here, only from what I’ve been told. I get omnisexuality about as little as I get exclusively gay/straight people. This feels a bit like a blind person explaining green to someone who can’t see colours.
Yea, it’s obviously not about who you get the hots for, at that point. In both cases, everyone’s on the menu.
The commonly used distinction is, that pan is often described as „gender-blind“, meaning, gender has no role in attraction. A guy is hot, because he’s hot, not because he’s a guy, while this can be very much the case with omni.
But yes, it’s a very small distinction. It doesn’t make enough of a difference for most people. There’s a reason very few people identify as omni. But let them have their fun, if that small distinction matters to them. There’s no reason to police labels.
Sure, I’m not going to police it. If someone wants to call themselves omni I’m not going to tell them they’re wrong. They’re free to do whatever they want. I’m just saying it does seem to make sense to have a different term, beside just having fun.
For example though, I’m a straight man, but I’m still attracted to some more masculine appearing women. I’m just attracted to who I’m attracted to. There doesn’t need to be an additional term for straight people who can be attracted to both masculine and feminine appearing people of the opposite sex. That’d be absurd, and I’m sure the omni people would agree.
Thats what it sounds like “omni” is trying to do. You’re attracted to anyone, regardless of gender, which is pan. You just have a preference for particular gendered appearances. That’s still pan, but you have preferences for appearances, like everyone else. We don’t need a word for every single persons preferences or we wouldn’t be able to have a conversation about it. We don’t need a word for people attracted to people with tattoos, for example.
No, the word for that is straight. But there are certainly words for people who are attracted to masculinity or femininity, regardless of gender. And of course there’s having a type. But that’s got nothing to do with sexuality. Pan folks can have types, too.
Well no. Omnisexuality is explicitly not regardless of gender. The gender is being regarded. That’s the whole point of the distinction. It’s just that all of them are being regarded. That has nothing to do with expression, type or appearance. The attraction to different genders might just be different, before type even plays a role.
At least, that’s how I understand it. I’m pan. I barely get how one can care about gender at all. I cannot speak out of experience here, only from what I’ve been told. I get omnisexuality about as little as I get exclusively gay/straight people. This feels a bit like a blind person explaining green to someone who can’t see colours.