Just playing the devil's advocate here Arch so bear with me, but D0ll did say 'someone' not woman. I personally would and have infact leaned towards his opinion in the past, just based on my own experiences with my sexuality. I don't know if this is what he meant, but it's how I interpret his opinion; that we, as humans with complex sexuality, have the ability to become attracted to anyone, regardless of the gender of that other person, and in the sense of human nature that's true. Humans ignore the bonding of only males and females (which almost all other animals obey) and have the ability to develop attraction towards either/any sex. I can prove this is true by saying to you "I am gay, my friend is straight and my professor is lesbian." Thereby proving that everyone has the capacity to love anyone.
I don't see it as (and again this is my own opinion) saying that we are all pansexual here in this exact moment, but that at some point (around when we begin to discover sexuality) we are pansexual and at that moment we begin to branch off from pansexuality and hone in more on being straight, or gay, or lesbian, or queer, or bi, or asexual, etc.
However I do find the "whether they're willing to admit it or not" a bit heavy handed as I would argue that such a pansexual state of being, for most people here, has come and gone, whether it was noticed or not and therefore doesn't really need to be 'admitted to'.
Anyways, that might not be what D0ll meant, but it's another way to observe this way of thinking. In my own theory one could interchange the word 'pansexuality' with a state of being a blank slate with regards to sexuality.