Talk:Polysexuality

Old discussion

Polysexual unfortunately has another common meaning, one interested or practicing open relationships, as contrasted to polyamory or polyfidelity (closed intimate relationships involving more than 2 adults). Pansexual has been incorrectly characterized as meaning, willing to be intimate with anything or anyone, just as bisexual has been re-defined by some to be mandating a gender binary. This article seems to be original research or statement, which is not consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. -Anon April 2010

Polysexuality is not the sexual attraction to parrots, I thought we should all get that out there in the public arena. Keep it real on the streets, Frederick Q Ansolm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.128.234 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This piece seems a bit strange: " It is my opinion that, the increase of opportunity related to the Internet must have increased the number of people who have experimented with polysexuality"

"My opinion"? Wikipedia should expose facts not opinions. i wish that this site could only have facts not fakes

---

Agreed... this article is clearly not written from NPOV. This is a common problem with sexuality-related articles. Unfortunately, I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough on the topic to make the changes. Is there a template for this? Arkaaito (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't this be merged with the article for Pansexuality anyway? 70.22.250.122 (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Polysexuality is distinct from pansexuality, as asserted in the first section of the article, and therefore I disagree that these articles should be merged.

On a related note, why is there a definition for pansexuality on this page? The content of the definition mostly fits for polysexuality too, but having a definition for pansexuality on an article for polysexuality is confusing.

I propose replacing/updating the 'As attraction to multiple genders' section as soon as a suitable definition for polysexuality can be cited. This will makes that section more accurate & less confused. Kathleen Bright (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

---

IMO both this article and the pansexuality article are "stubs" and moreover aren't very likely to become large articles in their own right. Given that scenario, my inclination would be to say that they should be merged, possibly under a new heading like "alternative sexuality" (which currently is a redirect to "human sexuality").

Although even the human sexuality article is short enough that I'm inclined to say these should both be included there, along side the information about heterosexuality and homosexuality... and really, what better place to discuss the question of gender and sexual identity binaries and their related controversies than in the human sexuality article? And then maybe we can start working on a timeline that identifies when (and maybe even by whom) various sexual identity distinctions have been coined.

But on the other hand unfortunately the talk page for pansexuality actually has a LOT more content than the actual article and although it was labelled as being part of the LGBT studies project and earmarked for the cleanup taskforce, there's been no activity on the taskforce page since 2007. Maybe the "sexual identity" article would be a better candidate.

So long story short, I do think the content should be rolled into a broader article to give it more context, but I'm not sure about the direction those changes should make myself, so I'm hesitant to just cut a swath through several articles without some consensus. ike (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I am confused as to what the alleged difference is between pansexuality and polysexuality - the articles don't seem to make it clear. If they are the same, just some people prefer one term or the other, maybe they should be merged? Orlando098 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pansexuality is the "sexual orientation" for people who are bisexual but also desperately want to feel special and different. But then that started to be too well-known, so all the hipsters came up with something more obscure, i.e., Polysexuality. --71.245.115.139 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tucker? Storr? do you have bibliographic info for refs?

The article cites a work by Storr and a work by Tucker but without enough information for us to find it. Could you please add the missing information? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Same remark. Those references as they are now are useless :-/ --Eunostos (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

'necessarily'

"Polysexuality encompases many, but not necessarily all, sexualities." Ok so the article says this. "But not necessarily all" - if there are all, it should be pansexuality, right? I think the word 'necessarily' is redundant and incorrect in this specific sentence. 176.109.57.119 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)