A few sexual questions

[Anders]

As far as I've been able to understand (and I'm no expert), the difference between pansexual and bisexual is more a matter of attitude towards the concept of gender. A pansexual rejects the notion that gender is either male or female. Some may think it's a spectrum, others think it's more a matter of entirely separate things.

That's my understanding, but it would be wise to ask a couple of pansexuals to get the better view.

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by Anders

As far as I've been able to understand (and I'm no expert), the difference between pansexual and bisexual is more a matter of attitude towards the concept of gender. A pansexual rejects the notion that gender is either male or female. Some may think it's a spectrum, others think it's more a matter of entirely separate things.

That's my understanding, but it would be wise to ask a couple of pansexuals to get the better view.

Or maybe they are turned on by Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee
Or goat-legged Greek gods?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(god)

Okay, I'll stop now.

Luke

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anders

As far as I've been able to understand (and I'm no expert), the difference between pansexual and bisexual is more a matter of attitude towards the concept of gender. A pansexual rejects the notion that gender is either male or female. Some may think it's a spectrum, others think it's more a matter of entirely separate things.

That's my understanding, but it would be wise to ask a couple of pansexuals to get the better view.

In the context of RPGs, I think the difference would be that a pansexual would also be okay with jumping into bed with a bushbot, an erotopus, or a Krogan, while a bisexual merely would be okay with the (usually up to two) sexes of one's own species or a highly similar species (e.g. Neanderthals, Eloi, Minbari etc.).

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Isn't "pansexual" more "attracted to personality regardless of the gender of the person"?

But that's not just pretentious, it's incredibly insulting to all other orientations. It implies, and has even been outright said by many self-described pansexuals, that we love the genitals more than the person.

Humans fall on a spectrum of biological female to male. If you like some on one side and some on the other that's bisexual. How large the bands within that spectrum you don't find attractive are doesn't need a separate word anymore than preferring blonds over brunettes, or geeks over jocks would.
It should go without saying that no one finds every single person of a group attractive.
It seems like attempting impossible levels of specificity. I can't know if I would find someone attractive by you just using a few words to describe them. Once we get past the big negating categories of orientation, the only way to know more is for me to actually meet them.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

In the context of RPGs, I think the difference would be that a pansexual would also be okay with jumping into bed with a bushbot, an erotopus, or a Krogan, while a bisexual merely would be okay with the (usually up to two) sexes of one's own species or a highly similar species (e.g. Neanderthals, Eloi, Minbari etc.).

Once we get that fictional, I don't think even pansexual is that useful of a term outside platonic ideals. It's not just an issue of personality pluses and minuses which nearly everyone cares about to some degree. But also of physical pluses and minuses that don't exist on earth right now... such as a hypothetical pansexual that has thalassaphobia, so would have a freak out no matter how nicely the uplifted octopus behaved.
In the same way that we can't know how modern self-described pansexuals would react to pleasant non-humans, we don't know about any self-described hetero/bi/homo sexuals either. Maybe hetero me would fall for a gruff krogan. I literally have no clue if I could.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

Or maybe they are turned on by Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee
Or goat-legged Greek gods?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(god)

Okay, I'll stop now.

Luke

I kind of was confused when I first read the word as well. At least those suggestions are more original than the, "you love kitchenware?" nonsense I've seen on the net.
Then again when I first heard the word Seder, I wondered what satyrs had to do with Judaism.

[muduri]

Very late to the party on the OP topic but just wanted to toss in another data point that there's actually been a ton of sex in our GURPS DF-ish Hârn-ish game, partly because, taking a cue from Pendragon, establishing legitimate and illegitimate heirs has been a key part of setting up the next generation of adventurers once our current crop ages out of the goblin-fighting demographic.

I quietly made Impotent and Barren worth more, and "consult your GM first" disads, because they made things difficult in the long-term in a way that players didn't necessarily realize in their first tentative game. You start to realize the unexpected advantages to your healthy half-orc parvenu and feel bad for your Celibate monk/nun as the campaign progresses! Hopefully in Kyamu the penalties to high-altitude sex will come up at some point and Tibetan nomad polyandry will see an in-game justification.

But as mentioned already, this game's probably an outlier - really just depends on whether this kind of thing comes up at all in the OP's campaign.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by muduri

But as mentioned already, this game's probably an outlier - really just depends on whether this kind of thing comes up at all in the OP's campaign.

My San Diego games were outliers in this way more often than not. The last session of Tapestry included the quarter-human nixie quartermaster decide that he didn't find the half-elf nixie sailor suitable either as a wife or as a mistress, and wasn't going to get physically involved with her; and the nixie from a different culture who signed on partway through the voyage deciding that it was time for him to propose to his half-sister back home, followed by two different shipmates coming up with gifts to offer the half-sister.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It should go without saying that no one finds every single person of a group attractive.
It seems like attempting impossible levels of specificity. I can't know if I would find someone attractive by you just using a few words to describe them.

When you get that specific and reliable you're probably drifting heavily into "fetish" territory.
To keep this conversation nailed as closely to GURPS as possible: the normal "fetish" that people tend to talk about is a GURPS Quirk - "Has a thing for red-heads" doesn't normally make you ignore all factors you would otherwise qualify, like "has a nice personality", gender, health, social status, familiarity of culture. You might react at a +1 to red-heads but you don't ignore all the other reaction modifiers, and it doesn't automatically flip you into "attracted to" Appearance. You might have a -1 to resist Sex Appeal by red-heads, but only if they could use it on you in the first place.
The more negative qualifiers you're willing to let go by the wayside in favor of your favorite feature, the more likely it's worth more than a Quirk - but in your average campaign you might have to go all the way to "Well, normally I'm straight but I'll make an exception for you" before it counts as an actual disad, for making you vulnerable to Sex Appeal from more targets. I pick that specifically because GURPS normally allows/denies Sex Appeal by gender- and species-appropriateness, not by more finely-grained traits.