April O'Neil comes out as pansexual.
 

At least her actress does anyways. But I can see the character identifying as such as well. I can see her being able to fall in love with all genders... and certain purple bandanad turtles.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...140740777.html

Old joke, but I don't know what is so interesting about sex with kitchen utensils.

I can totally see April being pansexual given how shes been hanging around mutants all the time.

"Pansexual" is really a strange thing. Since they're not bisexual (which they can't be, right? since whether we bring transgender people into the equation, we're supposed to look at them as one gender or the other, right?) the general definition seems to be "they're sexually attracted to/will f*** anything."

So... yeesh. Animals and small children, too? Where is the line, exactly?

Here's the definition:

I dunno, kinda sounds like the same thing as bisexual to me? Meaning attracted to both men and women?

Mae Whitman.

No one needs to click the link now. :tlol:

Same I was just wondering. What's the difference then?

Unless they think bi people aren't "blind" enough...?

... How about this:

• If you are a heterosexual male, you are attracted to female anatomical features (breasts, vagina, etc).
• If you are a Homosexual male, you are attracted to male anatomical features (beard, penis, etc).
• If you are a Bisexual male, you find both male and female features attractive.
• If you are a pansexual, the features are neutral but you still have a sex drive and don't mind wheter your partner is male or female.

In practice there is no difference between a bisexual and a pansexual but the underlying psychology is different.

Technically aren't bisexuals also only female? I've never heard of a male bisexual. If a man has sex with another man, he's gay for life. There's no going back.

Are you talking about social perception here or is that something you really believe?

I mean a man can sleep with both a woman and another man, but once he "goes gay" it's pretty obvious he's gay. Even if he dates another woman after. Then the bisexual aspect disappears and it becomes a gay man.

"Being pansexual myself, I wish I had such incredible characters like Amity and Luz in my life when I was growing up." - Mae Whitman.

But... why?

Wait, what the f*ck? You honestly believe that if a man dates a woman after he's been with another man, he's still gay? UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

You really are sheltered, jesus christ.

In case anyone wants to know, neither of those characters are well written. The former completely changes personality after a few episodes, just so she can have a crush on the latter. The latter of the two has a really flimsy motivation for doing anything, though the show did eventually acknowledge that she does. The in general has this attitude of "we want this to happen, we're gonna make it happen wheter it makes sense or not". Eda, the witch Luz lives with is established to be a wanted criminal because she refuses to follow laws regarding magic specialisation, yet the show has no problem showing her walk around in public and several other characters just ignore the same laws without consequence.

The show can look nice and has decent voice acting but the character development and world building is nothing but contradictory garbage.

He might be.

I think you guys are missing the bigger picture here, does this make Donnie x April canon now?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RkscrVUvq-U/hqdefault.jpg

People always shrugged this scene off as being non-canon but I think this make sit canon. She wouldn't be the first either, the adult Ninja Turtles movie April is also pansexual


https://uproxx.com/wp-content/upload...mnt.jpg?w=650/

Two minutes of being serious about retarded queer crap:

"Pansexual" is a meaningless term, since it mixes gender presentation and sexuality, which are not connected (i.e. tomboyish / butch woman is not necessarily Lesbian, effeminate man not necessarily Gay).

It means that you are attracted to people regardless of their sex and presentation, but the thing is, there is already a term for it "Bisexuality", which perfectly, and most importantly, without relying on stereotypes explains such attractions. Especially since nothing in "Bisexuality" specifically says anything about gender presentation.

Also, term itself, "Pansexual", hints that it ties to sexuality not a gender stereotypes. Thus it is inherently confusing in itself and contradicts its meaning.

Its basically another fictional term to confuse people and brainwash them into believing that queer stuff is real, when most of those terms and ideas are just obtuse and redundant terms, not based on reality, but on some "queer science experiments", which are as factual as studies about possible green people on Mars.

Yeah, I'unno, to me "pansexual" just comes off as "Bisexual is old-fashioned and we need a newer, hipper label for it."

I mean maybe neatoman's onto something with the "underlying psychology" thing, but I'unno. To me it's still the same thing in practice. If you have sex with both chicks and dudes, the "why" isn't especially relevant. So I'm not sure why we need additional labels. Except for attention, of course.

I also agree with someone in the Comments section of that article: What would REALLY be "news" nowadays would be a person - especially a celebrity - "coming out" as Straight. Because THAT is something you just plain don't see or hear about anymore.
--------

Also, even though Cubed is just doing his usual sh*t-stirring gimmick, I did have to think about it for a minute, and y'know... just anecdotally, I am forced to admit that in my personal circle, most of the "bisexual" people I know are in fact women, whereas most of the guys who aren't straight tend to be "just Gay". I know a very small number of guys who would say they were bisexual (or "pansexual", I guess), but if you didn't know them and just met them for the first time, you'd just assume they were totally "gay" based on how they present themselves; you wouldn't know that they also liked girls unless you got into a conversation with them about it. I don't personally know any guys, I don't think, who are "quietly" bisexual, only "Flamboyant to the point where you'd assume they were Gay until proven otherwise." Whereas plenty of the girls I know who are bi don't exactly project it (although some do).

Very strange. I admit, this is entirely anecdotal, but it is something I realized the longer I thought about it.

I don't know. Cubed's assertation of "men can't be bisexual" is Obvious Bullsh*t, BUT, there's an asterisk next to it.

Men seem to adhere more strictly to labels than women do, so maybe that's part of it. Like they tend to see things in more black-or-white terms just in general, so perhaps it's simply that more men don't consider going both ways as an option and prefer the "simplicity" of either being one or the other.

Things are very confusing nowadays.

Proper term for this is bestiality...

So I actually kind of agree with Cubed on this one. Girls are far more likely to go through experimental phases like in college, where they might date a girl. However, said girl isn't really gay. Just going through an experimental phase. Yet a guy is only gonna have sex with another man if he is definitively, unquestionably gay.