NationStates Jolt Archive

Granted, as I'm sure you can tell by that paragraph, 95% of those who I've deemed absolutely full of it were women.
The thing is, I don't think that kind of woman is really "heterosexual" either. Those women are "approval-o-sexuals."

They have been taught that their primary function in life is to please heterosexual men, and that the only way they can succeed in life is by pleasing heterosexual men. They are taught that being attractive to male heterosexuals is the most important thing they can do with their time. They have been taught that their sexuality is defined by how well they can please heterosexual males. They have been taught that failure to please heterosexual males will result in them being alone and unloved and outcast.

Thus, they do everything in their power to please heterosexual men. If that means pretending to like kissing girls, so be it. If it means pretending to like kissing boys, so be it.

Some of the most "sexual" women you will ever meet are approval-o-sexuals. Their sexuality revolves around getting attention and approval, rather than around their own desires and the desires of their partner(s).

OMG! You would think that *I* was totally off the charts! ROFLMFAO!!!

You should know by now that you're, by default, put at the top of any chart relating to age here. ;) :) :fluffle:

Thus, they do everything in their power to please heterosexual men. If that means pretending to like kissing girls, so be it. If it means pretending to like kissing boys, so be it.

Some of the most "sexual" women you will ever meet are approval-o-sexuals. Their sexuality revolves around getting attention and approval, rather than around their own desires and the desires of their partner(s).
I don't agree, because many teenage girls do sexual things with other teenage girls when there are no boys around to please. Most of these girls then go on to lead rather heterosexual lives. I think that the reason is rather, that they want sex but for various reasons are afraid to pursue it with boys until they're a bit older. They equate heterosexual sex with danger, to a degree, and they think that sex with other girls has many of the benefits of straight sex without the risks.

See my previous post. http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771311&postcount=68

I don't agree, because many teenage girls do sexual things with other teenage girls when there are no boys around to please. Most of these girls then go on to lead rather heterosexual lives. I think that the reason is rather, that they want sex but for various reasons are afraid to pursue it with boys until they're a bit older. They equate heterosexual sex with danger, to a degree, and they think that sex with other girls has many of the benefits of straight sex without the risks.

See my previous post. http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771311&postcount=68
What you have said is not at all in disagreement with what I said.

For one thing, the girls I am talking about are taught to get approval, and they are taught that they will get approval by pleasing heterosexual males. This does not mean that the approval must COME FROM the heterosexual males. Homosocial interactions are common in both genders, and actually tend to be more dramatic in heterosexual groups.

Another element is that many of the behaviors you describe still stem directly from the pressures I was talking about. Girls are taught that boys will only like them if they are "pure," and that getting boys to like them is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. Yet they want to experiment with sex. So, in order to preserve their value to males, they experiment in ways that they believe will not compromise their worth. This is also why many girls engage in anal sex with male partners; they want to save their "virginity" so that they will still have value to future male partners, so they engage in a kind of sex that they believe will allow them to remain marketable.

For another thing, the existence of approval-o-sexuals does not preclude the existence of young girls who are genuinely just curious about their sexuality.

If it is physically possible for a human being to be attracted to men, and it is physically possible for a human being to be attracted to women, what on Earth would make anyone think that it was impossible for a human being to be attracted to both?

As for the "gay people often think it doesn't exist" issue, I have two explanations for that. One is that some (certainly not all, and I would think it probably happens less and less) homosexuals go through a bit of a phase where they say they are bisexual, even though they are not actually attracted to the opposite sex, at least not on a regular basis. It makes the whole "coming out" thing a little more gradual. Afterwards, these people, who knew all along they were never bisexual, will sometimes assume that this means that nobody is. Of course, that is the exact same mentality of the heterosexual people who say that it is impossible for anyone to actually be homosexual, simply because they are not.

The other issue is that gay men have sometimes had bisexual men leave them for a woman. It tends to smart a bit, I would suppose.

I’m of the opinion that nearly everyone is a bit bisexual.


So is Sigmund Freud.

BTW, I am bisexual. So yes, it does exist.

If it is physically possible for a human being to be attracted to men, and it is physically possible for a human being to be attracted to women, what on Earth would make anyone think that it was impossible for a human being to be attracted to both?

As for the "gay people often think it doesn't exist" issue, I have two explanations for that. One is that some (certainly not all, and I would think it probably happens less and less) homosexuals go through a bit of a phase where they say they are bisexual, even though they are not actually attracted to the opposite sex, at least not on a regular basis. It makes the whole "coming out" thing a little more gradual. Afterwards, these people, who knew all along they were never bisexual, will sometimes assume that this means that nobody is. Of course, that is the exact same mentality of the heterosexual people who say that it is impossible for anyone to actually be homosexual, simply because they are not.

The other issue is that gay men have sometimes had bisexual men leave them for a woman. It tends to smart a bit, I would suppose.
Also, there are some people who use "bisexuality" as an excuse to act like a jackass. They pretend that being bisexual means that they can't control their sexual behavior; "Oh, I just couldn't help cheating on you, because I'm bisexual! I am just wired that way!" This is dishonest, and it gives bisexuals a very bad name. Bisexuals are not any more likely to be promiscuous or adulterous than anybody else, but bisexuality seems to be a convenient excuse that some people employ to get away with irresponsible or cruel behavior.

So...

People can be attracted to men, women, beasts, old women, old men, pre-pubescent children, babies, human excrement, panties...

But people cannot be attracted to men and women at the same time?

So...

People can be attracted to men, women, beasts, old women, old men, pre-pubescent children, babies, human excrement, panties...

But people cannot be attracted to men and women at the same time?
Nope. We all must fit on the GAY OR STRAIGHT continuum. There is never any middle ground.

Also, enjoyment of anything other than procreative heterosexual sex in the missionary position will result in you going straight to hell. Pervert.

Nope. We all must fit on the GAY OR STRAIGHT continuum. There is never any middle ground.

Also, enjoyment of anything other than procreative heterosexual sex in the missionary position will result in you going straight to hell. Pervert.

*laughs and hands you a cookie*

Girls are taught that boys will only like them if they are "pure," and that getting boys to like them is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. Yet they want to experiment with sex. So, in order to preserve their value to males, they experiment in ways that they believe will not compromise their worth. This is also why many girls engage in anal sex with male partners; they want to save their "virginity" so that they will still have value to future male partners, so they engage in a kind of sex that they believe will allow them to remain marketable.
Yeah, it's ridiculous that some girls still think they will be punished for having sex.

For another thing, the existence of approval-o-sexuals does not preclude the existence of young girls who are genuinely just curious about their sexuality.
I think that those young girls who are genuinely just curious about their sexuality are a minority. It must be the "you're bad if you engage in straight sex"/"approval" factor. The reason I think so is because the number of girls who have sexual encounters with other girls in the teenage years is dramatically higher than the number of boys who have sexual encounters with other boys (even taking into account the "you are gay and gays are evil!" factor that works against male bisexual exploration).

You should know by now that you're, by default, put at the top of any chart relating to age here. ;) :) :fluffle:
That's not what I meant. I was referring to the age differences between most of the women I date and myself. Half-hidden was expressing a degree of surprise at the age difference between Pure Metal and Glitziness, which is only 4 years! The difference between my age and the age of my current g/f is almost 30 years. :D

Ain't nuffin' but a number. :)

... enjoyment of anything other than procreative heterosexual sex in the missionary position will result in you going straight to hell. Pervert.
I'm doomed! :eek:

The real issue here is relativism. In an infinate universe, all things are relative. Straight and Gay are labels we attach to what we experience as two polarities on a continuum of sexual orientation. I have never met anyone at either extreme, that I am aware of, which to my mind would be someone who had a 100% attraction to one sex and a 100% aversion to the other. (Mind you that being 100% at one end of a continuum is logistically impossible, since a continuum never ends and any point on it is relative to the points on either side of it.) I think that people who claim to be 100% this or that or the other are protesting too much, and what they are really focused upon is their fear of being associated with the end of the continuum that they profess to not being attracted to. I think its equally fair to say that ALL sexuality is bi-sexuality, in that no one's sexuality truly exists at the poles. Rather each of us have leanings toward one pole or the other in that our choices tend to fall within a certain range of the continuum. Truly, no matter where you are you are going to worry about it anyway, so what difference does it make to attach so much energy to a label?

We bisexuals don't really exist. It's just a club we made up, where we act like we like men AND women simultaneously, as a way to irritate Fass.

Simultaneous loving baby

Two or three - HA

Simultaneous

Homosexuality has never been linked to infertility.

Indeed. And male homosexuality has actually been linked to increased fecundity in the mother and maternal aunts of the man, making it rather likely that any genetic influences contributing to homosexuality in those cases will be passed on by the female relatives.


That's not what I meant. I was referring to the age differences between most of the women I date and myself. Half-hidden was expressing a degree of surprise at the age difference between Pure Metal and Glitziness, which is only 4 years! The difference between my age and the age of my current g/f is almost 30 years.

Ain't nuffin' but a number.

I think the age differences that people are shocked by come as more of a percentage of the age than an absolute number. A 16-year old dating a 12-year old would be a little odd - and might be cause for concern. A 20 year-old dating a 24-year old? Most likely not a problem at all. A 60-year old and a 56-year old? Is there really even a difference?

The real issue here is relativism. In an infinate universe, all things are relative. Straight and Gay are labels we attach to what we experience as two polarities on a continuum of sexual orientation. I have never met anyone at either extreme, that I am aware of, which to my mind would be someone who had a 100% attraction to one sex and a 100% aversion to the other. (Mind you that being 100% at one end of a continuum is logistically impossible, since a continuum never ends and any point on it is relative to the points on either side of it.) I think that people who claim to be 100% this or that or the other are protesting too much, and what they are really focused upon is their fear of being associated with the end of the continuum that they profess to not being attracted to. I think its equally fair to say that ALL sexuality is bi-sexuality, in that no one's sexuality truly exists at the poles. Rather each of us have leanings toward one pole or the other in that our choices tend to fall within a certain range of the continuum. Truly, no matter where you are you are going to worry about it anyway, so what difference does it make to attach so much energy to a label?

Yes, but you see... it's not always the pole that I am interested in. :p

Yeah, it's ridiculous that some girls still think they will be punished for having sex.

No, it is perfectly logical that girls believe that. Girls ARE punished for having sex! Our society DOES value them less if they are no longer virgins! Men DO treat women as though they have less value if they are sexually experienced! It is totally rational for girls to realize that they will be punished for having sexual experience, because that is exactly what will happen.


I think that those young girls who are genuinely just curious about their sexuality are a minority. It must be the "you're bad if you engage in straight sex"/"approval" factor. The reason I think so is because the number of girls who have sexual encounters with other girls in the teenage years is dramatically higher than the number of boys who have sexual encounters with other boys (even taking into account the "you are gay and gays are evil!" factor that works against male bisexual exploration).
I think you just have a sampling problem. I don't think the rates of "exploration" are signficantly different. I think the rates of REPORTING are different. In other words, it is considered "sexy" for girls to have fooled around with other girls (due to the male fantasy element, of course), while it is regarded as shameful and icky for boys to have messed around with boys. Thus, girls are more likely to report having messed around with members of their own gender, while boys are less likely to do so.

the number of girls who have sexual encounters with other girls in the teenage years is dramatically higher than the number of boys who have sexual encounters with other boys

I would like to see the study that came to this conclusion. Do you have a reference?

Yes, but you see... it's not always the pole that I am interested in. :p

Hehehehe!

Speakign as a bisexual I would say, yes, yes there are.

Bisexual+Sex addict

Straight people who say homosexuality is a disease.
Gay people who say bisexuals are in denial or can’t make up their mind.
Bisexuals who say everyone is bi, some just are too conditioned to realize it. (see disclaimer below)
Those who say anybody with a label is a closed minded idiot because everyone should be f-ing everything that moves.

All four groups are assholes. Surprise, sexual preference does not prevent people being bigoted self-important assholes.

I am one of those that do not conform to a label. Not even pansexual.
Yes, I happen to think that people should not pay any attention to labels whatsoever. This in no way implies that everyone should lust after anything that moves, just that you should accept who you are and not need to codify it. If you find women appealing but guys do absolutely nothing for you – great, you like women, good for you. You do not need to wear the label of heterosexual or homosexual like some magic talisman to prevent a guy coming on to you because you are insecure about it. When I am out at a bar or something and a guy is hitting on me, I don’t get upset because I am not in the least bit homophobic. He isn’t my type. I don’t freak out and make sure everyone within earshot is informed that I am straight.

You like who you like, you don’t like who you don’t. That’s all it comes down to. If you limit sexuality to straight, gay, or bi – it really cannot encompass the wide range that is human sexuality. While some people do fit easily into these categories, some do not. In my experience sexuality is just one big grey area.

How about my not being attracted to masculine forms, but don’t care if the ‘woman’ I am attracted to has a penis? If I find someone I am attracted to, what is in the panties doesn’t matter. The plumbing is irrelevant. The curvy form of a woman, the delicate features, the softness of the jaw line, the way the nape of the next is so inviting to me… these things attract me. I have known some ‘women’ who nobody could tell that they have a penis. I found them highly appealing and started hooking up with them before finding out. Likewise if you look at a woman and she look-a-like a man, I usually have no interest. These things are simply tendencies anyway. I have slept with a lot of women, but also some men – given a choice I usually go for a woman, but an effeminate man is preferable to a masculine woman. The vast majority of the time I am not interested in guys, but once in a blue moon an individual comes along that strikes my fancy sexually – though not yet emotionally (OMG – you mean sexuality could operate on a case by case basis?!?).

I would never date a man, simply because I do not find them emotionally attractive – so I am most definitely not gay.

I do enjoy playing around with the equipment of both sexes so I am not straight.

Being neither I can hardly be described as being both.

Those of you who do fit nicely into one category or another, congratulations, society finds you easy to categorize. Please remember that not everyone is the same as you are.

When you start throwing in hermaphrodites who are both male and female, when you have transvestites, transsexuals, and all this before you even start to consider those who are attracted to things outside the human realm – human sexuality is not something that can be easily fitted into three little cubbyholes.




Now if you really want to get into it, I am polyamorous – everyone have fun with that one. ;) but really, that is for another thread so lets not wander off topic too much more.





Disclaimer: This is using a definition of someone being bi as someone who is attracted to and has sexual relations with both sexes. I happen to agree with the view that it is perfectly natural to have leanings one way or another, but it is all a matter of degree. Those who scream “no! it is disgusting to suggest that I would even look in the general direction of someone of the same sex!” have serious issues. That is a result of conditioning people to the point of homophobia – if you cannot honestly and rationally consider what it would be like to be attractive and have a relationship with someone of the same sex, then you have psychological issues that need to be dealt with before you can rationally join this discussion. I in no way intend this statement to mean that there are not people who do not find someone of a certain sex attractive, that is simply a ways down the spectrum, but it is simply another degree on the same scale.

I think the age differences that people are shocked by come as more of a percentage of the age than an absolute number. A 16-year old dating a 12-year old would be a little odd - and might be cause for concern. A 20 year-old dating a 24-year old? Most likely not a problem at all. A 60-year old and a 56-year old? Is there really even a difference?
Which may go a long way toward explaining why the laws in many US states now contain an age span for sexual relations between those under 18 and other age ranges, beyond which you can be charged with statuory rape.

Bisexual+Sex addict
sex-addict = 90% of the population. :p

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the age differences between most of the women I date and myself. Half-hidden was expressing a degree of surprise at the age difference between Pure Metal and Glitziness, which is only 4 years! The difference between my age and the age of my current g/f is almost 30 years. :D

Ain't nuffin' but a number. :)

Lol, Eut's a horn-dog

Sorry, but I don't believe this ... not for one second. :)

Is there a reason you don't believe it? Or is it just an 'icky' thought?

Nor do I, and frankly, I'm fucking tired of hearing that complete and utter bullshit.

Who else is, besides me and Fass? Come on people, gather 'round and help stop this idiocy.

Unless you think you have some pretty damn good evidence (and even then, I guess, if religion is anything to go by)... you might just have to learn to deal with it, I'm afraid.

I'm certainly not going to pretend it seems unlikely, just to spare the squeamishness of one or two individuals.

That's one urge I've never had, and I'm quite sure I won't be having it in the future.

You seem to have decided which urges you will allow...?

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the age differences between most of the women I date and myself. Half-hidden was expressing a degree of surprise at the age difference between Pure Metal and Glitziness, which is only 4 years! The difference between my age and the age of my current g/f is almost 30 years. :D

Ain't nuffin' but a number. :)

Seeing how The Half-Hidden is from Ireland, where the age of consent is 17, I think his shock was due to the Illegal aspect of it. Just a guess though...

Some people may think of bisexuals as being greedy or simply wanting sex no matter who it comes from. Others may think bisexuals are confused. Still others may simply claim bisexual is simply a way station on the way to coming out as gay.

However, I think there's a real, legitimate possibility that someone could be sexually attracted to people of both genders. I've heard of people who are simply attracted to attractive people (such as one person who never had any attraction to another guy but was attracted to Frank from The Real World: Las Vegas). Personally, I don't understand that, but it's because that's not my experience.

You like who you like, you don’t like who you don’t. That’s all it comes down to. If you limit sexuality to straight, gay, or bi – it really cannot encompass the wide range that is human sexuality. While some people do fit easily into these categories, some do not. In my experience sexuality is just one big grey area.Seconded.

All I would additionally say is that sexual orientation isn't always equal to sexual behavior, but this statement doesn't come from this particular post, just the thread in general.

You like who you like, you don’t like who you don’t. That’s all it comes down to. If you limit sexuality to straight, gay, or bi – it really cannot encompass the wide range that is human sexuality. While some people do fit easily into these categories, some do not. In my experience sexuality is just one big grey area.

Labels aren't always limits. If we didn't put labels on things, we would have no way of describing them.

I don't think it causes any harm to try and label the attractions you feel, as long as the label doesn't, itself, become the limit. A man who is generally attracted to women, but is also attracted to MtF transgendered or transvestite persons is essentially heterosexual. The label can be used without too much confusion. The only problem would come in if the guy found himself attracted to a MtF transsexual, but tried to repress it because he was "straight".

Everyone is bisexual. An orgasm is an orgasm regardless of who it is with. If the social stigmas that come with same-sex phsyical relationships didnt exist, I guarantee a hell of a lot more people would do it.

yes

Everyone is bisexual.

No, everyone is not bisexual. No one is bisexual.

What makes your claim that everybody is bisexual less stupid than my claim that nobody is?

Everyone is bisexual. An orgasm is an orgasm regardless of who it is with. If the social stigmas that come with same-sex phsyical relationships didnt exist, I guarantee a hell of a lot more people would do it.

while i believe that everyone has the POTENTIAL to be sexually ambiguous when it comes to orientation, i do not believe that everyone is bisexual because bisexuality implies an active looking for partners/lovers of both sexes. There is no stigma associated with heterosexuality that forces me into only sleeping with women, but i just cant seem to get off i know that whats inside of me is a real penis and not a plastic one attached to a leather harness!

bisexuality exists, and more people are bisexual than they admit, but everyone is not.

Everyone is bisexual. An orgasm is an orgasm regardless of who it is with. If the social stigmas that come with same-sex phsyical relationships didnt exist, I guarantee a hell of a lot more people would do it.

Agreed. Whichever way you PERSONALLY lean, however you 'get yours', defines your gender orientation much more closely than any attempt to pigeonhole ever could.

We all have the capacity to find what we need anywhere in the spectrum between two 'official genders', and to try to pin it to one of those extremes is illusion and confusion.

Humans just don't have the software to ever be THAT certain about anything.

while i believe that everyone has the POTENTIAL to be sexually ambiguous when it comes to orientation, i do not believe that everyone is bisexual because bisexuality implies an active looking for partners/lovers of both sexes.

I agree that not everyone would actually fall under the label "bisexual", but I have to disagree that it has to do with actively looking for partners/lovers. I am about to get married, and I'm a monogamous person, so I'm not actively looking for partners/lovers. This doesn't change the fact that I am attracted to both sexes, and thus bisexual. A person who enters a life of celibacy (priesthood, nunhood, other reasons) doesn't become asexual. They are still whatever sexuality they were before. They simply aren't actively pursuing sexual relationships.

while i believe that everyone has the POTENTIAL to be sexually ambiguous when it comes to orientation, i do not believe that everyone is bisexual because bisexuality implies an active looking for partners/lovers of both sexes. There is no stigma associated with heterosexuality that forces me into only sleeping with women, but i just cant seem to get off i know that whats inside of me is a real penis and not a plastic one attached to a leather harness!

bisexuality exists, and more people are bisexual than they admit, but everyone is not.

But, you are judging someone else's conjecture, by the rules of your own interpretation.

What you claim is 'implied', is not implied for others.

Example: You say: "bisexuality implies an active looking for partners/lovers of both sexes".

And yet, if you look at the parallels, I am (functionally) heterosexual, so you COULD say: "heterosexuality implies an active looking for partners/lovers of the 'opposite sex'. But - I don't, and never have...

Agreed. Whichever way you PERSONALLY lean, however you 'get yours', defines your gender orientation much more closely than any attempt to pigeonhole ever could.

We all have the capacity to find what we need anywhere in the spectrum between two 'official genders', and to try to pin it to one of those extremes is illusion and confusion.

Humans just don't have the software to ever be THAT certain about anything.

Bullshit. Bisexuality is the confusion that doesn't really exist, then.

I agree that not everyone would actually fall under the label "bisexual", but I have to disagree that it has to do with actively looking for partners/lovers. I am about to get married, and I'm a monogamous person, so I'm not actively looking for partners/lovers. This doesn't change the fact that I am attracted to both sexes, and thus bisexual. A person who enters a life of celibacy (priesthood, nunhood, other reasons) doesn't become asexual. They are still whatever sexuality they were before. They simply aren't actively pursuing sexual relationships.

by actively i didnt mean to imply "at this very moment, while we are typing" -- but i mean generally. when not restrained (and i do not mean to imply here that your partner-to-be is a restraint, but you know what i mean), does the person choose to persue people of both genders. if priests weren't celibate and could act upon their sexual desires, would they do so with men, women, or both? what would they want? by active i meant to imply more that, given all of the options and not being restrained by monogamy or celibacy, would they be attracted to and seek out both genders?

Bullshit. Bisexuality is the confusion that doesn't really exist, then.

Ugh. Doesn't shit like that just piss you off to no end? I know it pisses me off as much.

I'm so confused now.

Bullshit. Bisexuality is the confusion that doesn't really exist, then.

More hollow rhetoric? At least explain WHY, rather than hollowmouthed platitudes.

'Bi-sex-uality', because we have two 'sexes', and there is nothing (other than inclination or peer-pressure) to stop us veering all over that shop.

You, yourself, admit you have had intercourse with women, despite your claims to 'homosexuality'.

Ugh. Doesn't shit like that just piss you off to no end? I know it pisses me off as much.

How very scatologically enigmatic...

How very scatologically enigmatic...

*L*

More hollow rhetoric? At least explain WHY, rather than hollowmouthed platitudes.

'Bi-sex-uality', because we have two 'sexes', and there is nothing (other than inclination or peer-pressure) to stop us veering all over that shop.

You, yourself, admit you have had intercourse with women, despite your claims to 'homosexuality'.

I, for one, have no desire whatsoever to suck dick, or for another guy to ram me. I guess I mustn't exist, because I'm not bisexual.

But, you are judging someone else's conjecture, by the rules of your own interpretation.

What you claim is 'implied', is not implied for others.

Example: You say: "bisexuality implies an active looking for partners/lovers of both sexes".

And yet, if you look at the parallels, I am (functionally) heterosexual, so you COULD say: "heterosexuality implies an active looking for partners/lovers of the 'opposite sex'. But - I don't, and never have...

i am not speaking time-specifically. you dont actively pussy/dick-hunt (i am not going to make any assumption about your gender), but does that mean you are not interested in the opposite sex sexually. and if you arent, then you are asexual. by "active looking" i mean more like, "actively attracted to" or "actively interested in." -- I apologize if my word choice was confusing, i did not mean to imply that you must be having sex to have a sexuality, but I still stand by my belief that bisexuality implies a sexual openness to both genders.

and since i am not sexually open or responsive to the male gender (not even if they're female born), then i believe that the belief that 'everyone is bisexual' is an incorrect assumption.

I’m of the opinion that nearly everyone is a bit bisexual.

Ron White, Blue Collar Comedy Tour, anyone? :D According to him, everyone is gay (or bisexual).... to a point.

I think there is a such thing as bisexual. You like both, and you know it. Gays who think bisexuals are confused are probably just talking from their own expperiences. Before they realized they were gay they figured they were bisexual.

Maybe I'm just blowing off a bunch of hot air. I live in a very conservative town in the Southeastern US, so I may not know what I'm talking about.

:D

Lol, Eut's a horn-dog
ROFLMAO! And you're just now discovering this? Tsk! Slow learner, you are! :D

Is there a reason you don't believe it? Or is it just an 'icky' thought?
The reason I don't believe it is because I know myself very, very well at this point in my life, and I can honestly say that I have no interest in sex with other men ... none.

Ego, a blanket statement like "everyone is bisexual" is false on the face of it. :p

More hollow rhetoric? At least explain WHY, rather than hollowmouthed platitudes.

'Bi-sex-uality', because we have two 'sexes', and there is nothing (other than inclination or peer-pressure) to stop us veering all over that shop.

You, yourself, admit you have had intercourse with women, despite your claims to 'homosexuality'.

having sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay, just as having sex with someone of the opposite sex doesn't make you straight. sexuality is part self-identification, the realization that this is where your attraction lays, and then deciding how you want to deal with that in your future realtionships. i dont think that sexual experimentation makes you one, the other, or both.

also, since we live in a heteronormative society, it is unfair to tell those who identify as homosexual that since they experimented with heterosexuality at one point they cannot claim homosexuality. in a society that tells us that women and men should fuck, and that should be it, it might take a confused young lass or lad a few go-arounds before he/she figures out that the reason they're not really enjoying themselves like everyone else is because they're doing it with the wrong type of person.

:fluffle: Bisexuality is real, and as Woody Allen once said: "Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night." :fluffle:

The reason I don't believe it is because I know myself very, very well at this point in my life, and I can honestly say that I have no interest in sex with other men ... none.

Ego, a blanket statement like "everyone is bisexual" is false on the face of it. :p

I think the idea behind the "everyone is bisexual" type statements is that, even if you have never in your life been attracted to a man, there is always that possibility that there is one man out there that you would be.

I tend to think of sexuality as a spectrum, moreso than two or three or four or however many discrete points. Some people (although I would doubt very many) fall exactly 50-50 in the spectrum, equally attracted to both men and women. Others of us are off of that mark, but still clearly in the "attracted to both genders" category. Others are way over on the homo- or hetero-sexual line. But there is always that chance, even with someone who is 99.999999% heterosexual and thus appears to be 100%, that they might find the same-sex partner who makes up the 0.000001%, and vice versa with homosexuals.

More hollow rhetoric? At least explain WHY, rather than hollowmouthed platitudes.

Because everyone is not bisexual.

Nobody is bisexual. I can say that with the knowledge that it is as stupid as your claim.

'Bi-sex-uality', because we have two 'sexes', and there is nothing (other than inclination or peer-pressure) to stop us veering all over that shop.

Bisexuality is imaginary and only a ruse told by fags who can't admit what they truly are. Every stupid claim of yours will be countered with an equally stupid one.

You, yourself, admit you have had intercourse with women, despite your claims to 'homosexuality'.

I've been to the US. Didn't make me a citizen. I've eaten vegetables. Didn't make me a vegetarian. My dick got hard by thinking of a chest-haired man.

I, for one, have no desire whatsoever to suck dick, or for another guy to ram me. I guess I mustn't exist, because I'm not bisexual.

I personally have no desires to that extreme, either. But, as another poster said, an orgasm is an orgasm - to be as crude as the thread seems to be becoming - sperm don't care where you spill 'em.

I'm not interested in 'gay' sex... but I can't even pretend to KNOW that I never might be.

The reason I don't believe it is because I know myself very, very well at this point in my life, and I can honestly say that I have no interest in sex with other men ... none.

Ego, a blanket statement like "everyone is bisexual" is false on the face of it. :p

Paging Dr Freud.... you might have intended... 'ergo'?

I don't deny your claimed orientation... I just think you swing very much to one extreme of something far more fluid than 'two sides of a fence'.

I personally have no desires to that extreme, either. But, as another poster said, an orgasm is an orgasm - to be as crude as the thread seems to be becoming - sperm don't care where you spill 'em.

I'm not interested in 'gay' sex... but I can't even pretend to KNOW that I never might be.

I don't pretend to know, because I do know. I have no sexual feeling whatsoever towards other males, and for you to say how I should or could think and feel is outright ridiculous. Everyone is different, and I know for a fact that I'm not attracted to other guys, and that's that.

I think the idea behind the "everyone is bisexual" type statements is that, even if you have never in your life been attracted to a man, there is always that possibility that there is one man out there that you would be.

I tend to think of sexuality as a spectrum, moreso than two or three or four or however many discrete points. Some people (although I would doubt very many) fall exactly 50-50 in the spectrum, equally attracted to both men and women. Others of us are off of that mark, but still clearly in the "attracted to both genders" category. Others are way over on the homo- or hetero-sexual line. But there is always that chance, even with someone who is 99.999999% heterosexual and thus appears to be 100%, that they might find the same-sex partner who makes up the 0.000001%, and vice versa with homosexuals.

Exactly. :)

I think the idea behind the "everyone is bisexual" type statements is that, even if you have never in your life been attracted to a man, there is always that possibility that there is one man out there that you would be.

I tend to think of sexuality as a spectrum, moreso than two or three or four or however many discrete points. Some people (although I would doubt very many) fall exactly 50-50 in the spectrum, equally attracted to both men and women. Others of us are off of that mark, but still clearly in the "attracted to both genders" category. Others are way over on the homo- or hetero-sexual line. But there is always that chance, even with someone who is 99.999999% heterosexual and thus appears to be 100%, that they might find the same-sex partner who makes up the 0.000001%, and vice versa with homosexuals.

but at a point, it is pretty pointless to consider youself bisexual if you are 99.999% gay. even if you are 75% gay. self-identification and how people understand their identity is VERY important in minority politics. many bisexuals feel left out by the general LGBTQ community movement, and i honestly i think it is because homosexuals are sore that bisexuals are able to move more freely in live and identification. I have bisexual friends that i KNOW are going to grow up, abandon their rainbow bumper stickers, and marry rich men. Bisexuals have the ability to jump ship, which homosexuals do not. "well, ive graduated college and im done with experiementing...." -- there is a reason that terms like LUG and BUG exist!

Bisexuality is imaginary and only a ruse told by fags who can't admit what they truly are. Every stupid claim of yours will be countered with an equally stupid one.

My internet sarcasm-dar is off, are you being serious here or not?

I personally have no desires to that extreme, either. But, as another poster said, an orgasm is an orgasm - to be as crude as the thread seems to be becoming - sperm don't care where you spill 'em.

I'm not interested in 'gay' sex... but I can't even pretend to KNOW that I never might be.

Oh, you're one of those "hypothetical bisexuals," who aren't really attracted to having gay sex at all, but who still reason, the "open-minded" gits, that they are bisexual because they can use demented hypotheticals of percentual maths to "reason" they are bisexual, when in fact they are not.

This explains so much.

having sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay, just as having sex with someone of the opposite sex doesn't make you straight. sexuality is part self-identification, the realization that this is where your attraction lays, and then deciding how you want to deal with that in your future realtionships. i dont think that sexual experimentation makes you one, the other, or both.

also, since we live in a heteronormative society, it is unfair to tell those who identify as homosexual that since they experimented with heterosexuality at one point they cannot claim homosexuality. in a society that tells us that women and men should fuck, and that should be it, it might take a confused young lass or lad a few go-arounds before he/she figures out that the reason they're not really enjoying themselves like everyone else is because they're doing it with the wrong type of person.

I didn't claim that experimentation makes you anything... although I think bisexual experimentation is a pretty good indicator that 'bisexuality' is the rule, rather than the exception.

Again though, the thing falls down, because you talk partitions, in what seems to be a luid medium.

I'm not sure what people think they are proving when they resort to phrases like 'heteronormative'... I certainly don't 'expect' men to specifically like women, any more than I 'expect' them to specifically like men.

My internet sarcasm-dar is off, are you being serious here or not?

Hey, as long as Grave_n_idle is saying something so obviously stupid as everyone being bisexual, I will counter it with the equally stupid claim that no one is.

Because everyone is not bisexual.

Nobody is bisexual. I can say that with the knowledge that it is as stupid as your claim.


That didn't address the point...


Bisexuality is imaginary and only a ruse told by fags who can't admit what they truly are. Every stupid claim of yours will be countered with an equally stupid one.


This also didn't address the point...


I've been to the US. Didn't make me a citizen. I've eaten vegetables. Didn't make me a vegetarian. My dick got hard by thinking of a chest-haired man.

Three for three, well done. You've singularly failed to address any of my points, and you've boosted your post count by one. You should bne very proud.

That didn't address the point...

This also didn't address the point...

Three for three, well done. You've singularly failed to address any of my points, and you've boosted your post count by one. You should bne very proud.

The thing is, you have no point. You're just spouting stupid.

I don't pretend to know, because I do know. I have no sexual feeling whatsoever towards other males, and for you to say how I should or could think and feel is outright ridiculous. Everyone is different, and I know for a fact that I'm not attracted to other guys, and that's that.

Is your name Cassandra?

I think the idea behind the "everyone is bisexual" type statements is that, even if you have never in your life been attracted to a man, there is always that possibility that there is one man out there that you would be.

I tend to think of sexuality as a spectrum, moreso than two or three or four or however many discrete points. Some people (although I would doubt very many) fall exactly 50-50 in the spectrum, equally attracted to both men and women. Others of us are off of that mark, but still clearly in the "attracted to both genders" category. Others are way over on the homo- or hetero-sexual line. But there is always that chance, even with someone who is 99.999999% heterosexual and thus appears to be 100%, that they might find the same-sex partner who makes up the 0.000001%, and vice versa with homosexuals.
And your proof for this would be???

That didn't address the point...



This also didn't address the point...



Three for three, well done. You've singularly failed to address any of my points, and you've boosted your post count by one. You should bne very proud.

You don't have any points. You're making ridiculous assumptions based on "data" which has absolutely no scientific backing whatsoever. You're saying, in so many words, that everybody has to be bisexual, which is just plain stupid.

Is your name Cassandra?

...What?

but at a point, it is pretty pointless to consider youself bisexual if you are 99.999% gay. even if you are 75% gay. self-identification and how people understand their identity is VERY important in minority politics. many bisexuals feel left out by the general LGBTQ community movement, and i honestly i think it is because homosexuals are sore that bisexuals are able to move more freely in live and identification. I have bisexual friends that i KNOW are going to grow up, abandon their rainbow bumper stickers, and marry rich men. Bisexuals have the ability to jump ship, which homosexuals do not. "well, ive graduated college and im done with experiementing...." -- there is a reason that terms like LUG and BUG exist!

So - some 'gay' groups are sore because bisexuals can 'choose' to life a straight lifestyle?

I hope that isn't true... because it'd be a pretty sorry stereotype.

And, perhaps many bisexuals might 'choose' to live a stright lifestyle... but the lifestyle they choose to live does not alter what their orientation IS... only what they do about it.

If you can like guys and if you can like women I don't see why people couldn't like both.

I didn't claim that experimentation makes you anything... although I think bisexual experimentation is a pretty good indicator that 'bisexuality' is the rule, rather than the exception.

well, you did try to discredit Fass's homosexuality by pointing out that he had sex with two...count it TWO....women.

god, fucking breeders.

I'm not sure what people think they are proving when they resort to phrases like 'heteronormative'... I certainly don't 'expect' men to specifically like women, any more than I 'expect' them to specifically like men.

well, thats a very radical, forward way of thinking. but until the rest of america/the world catches up with you, i am going to maintain that our society is heteronormative and that that is what people expect. to be bi or homosexual IS the exepction because heterosexual is the norm. i will agree that more people have bisexual tendencies than they act upon but that is because heterosexuality is the standard--and if you are 10% gay, why bother going there if the other 90% of you can be fine doin' it breeder style? but that does not mean that EVERYONE is bisexual, because to be bisexual means that you are interested in both sexes/genders.

i am not.
therefore, you are disproved.

So - some 'gay' groups are sore because bisexuals can 'choose' to life a straight lifestyle?

I hope that isn't true... because it'd be a pretty sorry stereotype.

And, perhaps many bisexuals might 'choose' to live a stright lifestyle... but the lifestyle they choose to live does not alter what their orientation IS... only what they do about it.

do you know anything about gay politics?

orientation: how you feel/who you are attracted to
identification: who you admit/are openly attracted to.

they are not always the same.
bug = bisexual until graduation -- the phenomenon where many co-ed cuties are openly bisexual until they finish college, grow up, and marry men. they might still be oriented the same way, but they suddenly identify as straight.

identification is almost as important as orientation.

Oh, you're one of those "hypothetical bisexuals," who aren't really attracted to having gay sex at all, but who still reason, the "open-minded" gits, that they are bisexual because they can use demented hypotheticals of percentual maths to "reason" they are bisexual, when in fact they are not.

This explains so much.

You appear to be attacking me for the 'sin' of open-mindedness?

I wonder why you keep bringing it back to the 'sex'....

I'm sorry, my friend, but you do presume too much. Just because I consider myself straight, does not mean I've NEVER considered other options.

I don't see how a 'straight' person believing they MIGHT have a same-sex relationship, is any more hypocritical than a 'gay' person who has claimed to have had 'functional' relations with the opposite gender.

You seem to be casting yourself as some kind of 'gay fundamentalist'?

Hey, as long as Grave_n_idle is saying something so obviously stupid as everyone being bisexual, I will counter it with the equally stupid claim that no one is.

Because it's easier than actually making a response?

You appear to be attacking me for the 'sin' of open-mindedness?

No, he's "attacking" you because you're saying everyone (including him) is bisexual. Enough already.

The thing is, you have no point. You're just spouting stupid.

I'd say you were dangerously close to flaming/flamebaiting.

I guess it's easier than debate, no?

You appear to be attacking me for the 'sin' of open-mindedness?

I wonder why you keep bringing it back to the 'sex'....

I'm sorry, my friend, but you do presume too much. Just because I consider myself straight, does not mean I've NEVER considered other options.

Right. A hypothetical faux-bisexual you are. Gotcha.

I don't see how a 'straight' person believing they MIGHT have a same-sex relationship, is any more hypocritical than a 'gay' person who has claimed to have had 'functional' relations with the opposite gender.

Yes, you do not see. It goes with the whole self-delusion of being a hypothetical bisexual.

You seem to be casting yourself as some kind of 'gay fundamentalist'?

And you seem to be casting yourself as a fraud.

...What?

She had the gift of prescience, but was doomed to never be believed.

One assumes, if you 'know' what your future orientation might be (rather than making educated guesses, perhaps, like other mere mortals), you must have some kind of oracular advantage?

Either that... or you are are just making claims to a future as you WISH it to be.

I think it's true that sexuality does lie on a spectrum, but I also think that it's fair to say that some people can possibly lie at the very edge of said spectrum and not encompass the entire spectrum just because it is possible.

I'd say you were dangerously close to flaming/flamebaiting.

I guess it's easier than debate, no?

There is nothing to debate. You're not even bisexual yourself and are trying to claim everyone is bisexual. I guess trolling is debate now?

She had the gift of prescience, but was doomed to never be believed.

One assumes, if you 'know' what your future orientation might be (rather than making educated guesses, perhaps, like other mere mortals), you must have some kind of oracular advantage?

Either that... or you are are just making claims to a future as you WISH it to be.

I know myself well enough to be secure in my personality and sexuality. And I know for damn sure that I don't need somebody I don't even know to tell me otherwise.

Butt out, bucko.

Because it's easier than actually making a response?

Because that is the only response something so stupid deserves. Hoping you'll see the stupid in what you say when someone mirrors it. Alas, I might be expecting too much of you...

well, you did try to discredit Fass's homosexuality by pointing out that he had sex with two...count it TWO....women.



I don't recall ever trying to 'credit' or 'discredit' anyone's sexuality. But, if someone is going to claim that there is no such thing as bisexuality, whilst at the same time highlighting possible evidence to the contrary - I'm not going to leave it unmentioned.

And, why the big fuss about "with two...count it TWO....women".... I know married men that have had sex with LESS THAN two women. Does that make their sexuality hypothetical or flawed?


god, fucking breeders.


In some company, that kind of use of terminology would be considered the exact same level of appropriateness as '******'.

I assume you mean it to be derogatory?


well, thats a very radical, forward way of thinking. but until the rest of america/the world catches up with you, i am going to maintain that our society is heteronormative and that that is what people expect. to be bi or homosexual IS the exepction because heterosexual is the norm. i will agree that more people have bisexual tendencies than they act upon but that is because heterosexuality is the standard--and if you are 10% gay, why bother going there if the other 90% of you can be fine doin' it breeder style? but that does not mean that EVERYONE is bisexual, because to be bisexual means that you are interested in both sexes/genders.

i am not.
therefore, you are disproved.

You CLAIM "heterosexuality is the standard". I disagree.

I think you are appealing to martyrdom.

Right. A hypothetical faux-bisexual you are. Gotcha.

Yes, you do not see. It goes with the whole self-delusion of being a hypothetical bisexual.

And you seem to be casting yourself as a fraud.

You bored me long ago.

Now you are being directly insulting... apparently, because the debate is not going your way.

I ignored you earlier, but still you follow my posts... so I ask you, reply with moderation, or I shall seek moderation.

Or, for preference, just stop replying to me at all... as I did to you in another thread, AND in this one... until you got back on my case.

I don't need to accept your slurs on my sexuality.

I think it's true that sexuality does lie on a spectrum, but I also think that it's fair to say that some people can possibly lie at the very edge of said spectrum and not encompass the entire spectrum just because it is possible.

An individual may touch the extreme.

But, collectively, 'everyone is bisexual'. (Think about it).

I don't need to accept your slurs on my sexuality.

And I will not stand for yours of mine, hypocrite.

I don't need to accept your slurs on my sexuality.

Nor do we need yours on ours. Yet, you refuse to refrain, and therein lies our problem.

I know myself well enough to be secure in my personality and sexuality. And I know for damn sure that I don't need somebody I don't even know to tell me otherwise.

Butt out, bucko.

What an interesting response.

I don't believe I have told you you don't know your own personality or sexuality.

I have stated my belief, that it is impossible for us to know for sure where our affections might lie, in the future.

Nor do we need yours on ours. Yet, you refuse to refrain, and therein lies our problem.

And, where (exactly) did I slur your sexuality?

I have been told that my sexuality is a fabrication... how exactly have I slurred your personal orientation?

No, it is perfectly logical that girls believe that. Girls ARE punished for having sex! Our society DOES value them less if they are no longer virgins! Men DO treat women as though they have less value if they are sexually experienced! It is totally rational for girls to realize that they will be punished for having sexual experience, because that is exactly what will happen.
You're right, actually. Girls are punished for consenting to and enjoying sex, while there is no such stigma on boys. However, I don't think that most modern men especially want their female partners to be virgins.

I think you just have a sampling problem. I don't think the rates of "exploration" are signficantly different. I think the rates of REPORTING are different. In other words, it is considered "sexy" for girls to have fooled around with other girls
I don't think I have a sampling problem. I'm 20 years old, male, and have spent most of the last decade hanging around with lots of other male peers. I think I'm spot on.

However, whether the difference in the bisexual/approve-o-sexual rate is natural, or whether it's due to demonisation of gay men. (also the belief that ever doing anything sexual with another man makes you 100% gay)

snip

Bisexuality is imaginary and only a ruse told by fags who can't admit what they truly are. Every stupid claim of yours will be countered with an equally stupid one.


snip
Could have fooled me I have had various fairly long term relationships with both males and females ... I am plenty happy with both so far in my life.

Unless you have some evidence to back your claim that I some how don't exist or I don't feel the way I do please show it.

Yes, bisexuality exists.

No, not everyone is bisexual. I'm not. Never have been. If I had, I'd probably gotten around to banging women instead of undergoing a painful coming out process to come to terms with my homosexuality.

I've never been attracted sexually by a female. Likewise, I have no trouble believe some males have never been attracted by another male. I'm certain there's a whole damn lot more bisexuals than those who are outspoken about it, but I'll never buy that argument that everyone is.

*snip* (also the belief that ever doing anything sexual with another man makes you 100% gay)
Yes, because they're all afraid that gay sex is SO MUCH MORE enjoyable than straight sex, that to dabble into it only once changes you forever :p

Well, can't argue with that, it worked for me :D

And, where (exactly) did I slur your sexuality?

I have been told that my sexuality is a fabrication... how exactly have I slurred your personal orientation?
I don't get it Ive been surprised over and over how intolerant the gay community (which is fighting to have its identity looked upon as legit) can be so degrading and frankly bisexualphobic (or whatever the word is for it)

It always shocks the hell out of me.

I don't know if this is what fass is doing in this case but I meant in general

What an interesting response.

I don't believe I have told you you don't know your own personality or sexuality.

I have stated my belief, that it is impossible for us to know for sure where our affections might lie, in the future.

Yeah, you "stated" it, in the sense that you tried to impose it on the very thread itself, as if nobody could possibly not be bisexual.

There's the fact that each person's body is able to have relations with any other person's body, regardless of sex. However, that doesn't mean the person his or herself wants to, or even imagines doing so. What you're alluding to is that everyone is capable of bisexual relations, which couldn't be much further from the truth.

There's a difference between physical body and a person as a whole, and trying to establish a precedent based solely on the physical form is rubbish, plain and simple.

Could have fooled me I have had various fairly long term relationships with both males and females ... I am plenty happy with both so far in my life.

Unless you have some evidence to back your claim that I some how don't exist or I don't feel the way I do please show it.

Read the thread before responding, please. Grave_n_idle is spouting the stupidity that we are all bisexual. I'm spouting the mirrored stupidity that no one is bisexual to show how stupid his claims are. Lost on some, it seems.

I don't get it Ive been surprised over and over how intolerant the gay community (which is fighting to have its identity looked upon as legit) can be so degrading and frankly bisexualphobic (or whatever the word is for it)

It always shocks the hell out of me.

I don't know if this is what fass is doing in this case but I meant in general

I've encountered similar things before.

Ironic really, because I've always been an advocate of alternatives in pretty much every walk.

But, there seems to be an idea that 'if you don't think EXACTLY how we like, we don't WANT your support', from some.

I'm not losing sleep over it (God knows, I've bigger problems in life than that)... I'll just keep right on doing what I do.

Read the thread before responding, please. Grave_n_idle is spouting the stupidity that we are all bisexual. I'm spouting the stupidity that no one is bisexual to show how stupid his claims are. Lost on some, it seems.
Thats why I was not mean nor indignant about it ... I am sorry I mistook your position but you two and many more have been raging all over this thread

I apologize for missing the part where you started using the absurdum technique of argument its hard with the flurry of posts to trace back

I don't get it Ive been surprised over and over how intolerant the gay community (which is fighting to have its identity looked upon as legit) can be so degrading and frankly bisexualphobic (or whatever the word is for it)

It always shocks the hell out of me.

I don't know if this is what fass is doing in this case but I meant in general
Well, I'm gay and I get offended about that too. Mostly, I think it's a question of ignorance: anyone who has a bisexual friend and took 1/2 an hour to talk with him/her about it can't casually dismiss bisexuality as inexistant.

Yeah, you "stated" it, in the sense that you tried to impose it on the very thread itself, as if nobody could possibly not be bisexual.

There's the fact that each person's body is able to have relations with any other person's body, regardless of sex. However, that doesn't mean the person his or herself wants to, or even imagines doing so. What you're alluding to is that everyone is capable of bisexual relations, which couldn't be much further from the truth.

There's a difference between physical body and a person as a whole, and trying to establish a precedent based solely on the physical form is rubbish, plain and simple.

Actually, if you look at where I started in this thread, I was talking about a probability....

"Bisexual is probably the ONLY orientation.... and we each just find a comfortable position somewhere in that whole bracket".

I don't get it Ive been surprised over and over how intolerant the gay community (which is fighting to have its identity looked upon as legit) can be so degrading and frankly bisexualphobic (or whatever the word is for it)

It always shocks the hell out of me.
I'm not at all surprised that many homosexuals react badly to being told that 'everyone is bisexual'.

We still live in homophobic world, where 'coming out' is a big deal and there are people who will either constantly attack you for being 'wrong,' or will make out as if it's just a 'lifestyle choice that can be 'corrected''.

Now imagine that you are gay, and have to constantly put up with this attitude that you are somehow a 'heterosexual gone wrong'. Imagine that someone now says 'we are all bisexual;' ie, you are attracted to the opposite sex, even just a little bit. Would this not strike you as being just another way of attacking homosexuality as a 'choice', not a fact?

Actually, if you look at where I started in this thread, I was talking about a probability....

"Bisexual is probably the ONLY orientation.... and we each just find a comfortable position somewhere in that whole bracket".

Way to weasel out of that one.

Well, I'm gay and I get offended about that too. Mostly, I think it's a question of ignorance: anyone who has a bisexual friend and took 1/2 an hour to talk with him/her about it can't casually dismiss bisexuality as inexistant.
Thats cool... I know there are exceptions ... hell for all I know it may be a minority that do get that mad about it

But I almost always stay out of bisexuality threads, Its easy to argue a right or wrong or correct and incorrect on something. But its a lot more personal and harder to have to argue that you in fact exist.

And lately we (at least around here any threads I have participated on) we get nailed from both sides.)

...we get nailed from both sides...

bisexual pun? :p

Way to weasel out of that one.

Yes. What clever weaseling.

Using my own original words, unedited.

Damn, I'm sneaky.

?

I'm not at all surprised that many homosexuals react badly to being told that 'everyone is bisexual'.

We still live in homophobic world, where 'coming out' is a big deal and there are people who will either constantly attack you for being 'wrong,' or will make out as if it's just a 'lifestyle choice that can be 'corrected''.

Now imagine that you are gay, and have to constantly put up with this attitude that you are somehow a 'heterosexual gone wrong'. Imagine that someone now says 'we are all bisexual;' ie, you are attracted to the opposite sex, even just a little bit. Would this not strike you as being just another way of attacking homosexuality as a 'choice', not a fact?
No I understand the “Everyone is bisexual” part and why you don't like to declared as such

Its the same reason we don't like to be declared just gay.

And you would be amazed at the amount of times it is venomousness and rudely declared that we are nothing better then a bunch of ignorant kids that are lying to ourselves, that or sexually greedy
Or sluts

Or any other slur

And for some reason it feels so much like betrayal when it is by people and groups we are fighting with to get some equality.

bisexual pun? :p
:) lol not an intentional one

-snip-
I assure you I'm not gay. :p

It's just my thoughts.

*snip* we get nailed from both sides.

Is this half as fun as it sounds? ;)

Yes. What clever weaseling.

Using my own original words, unedited.

Damn, I'm sneaky.

?

Anyone can say they meant to have more emphasis on the word "probably".

I assure you I'm not gay. :p

It's just my thoughts.
Fair enough I seem to be missing the fine points today :)

Er, yes, there is such a thing. It's called mutual attraction. Why on earth would you only be able to be attracted to one or the other? Sure, some people may favour one more than the other, but that alone shouldn't polarize sexuality.

I am gay.
I have bisexual friends.
I know bisexuality exists.

I believe that Fass is full of shit on the topic.
I also believe that Grave_i_idle is full of shit on the topic.

I have no idea why Fass seems to want to turn the attitude that gay people receive from a large minority of the world onto another group within the GLBT sphere. (See, Fass, it's even in the name.)

Sexuality isn't binary. But neither is it very mutable. That's what I know, personally, to be true.

Also, Fass, that study that you posted about bisexual males? I read it and instantly got an uncomfortable feeling, like something was wrong - and there were several.

-the size of the representative groups were too small - 30 people hardly defines a sexuality
-the manner in which the 'nonconclusive' results were treated - straight and gay people not physically aroused by their porn of choice were thrown out as erroneous data, but bi people not physically aroused were treated as 'not bi'
-the assumption that lust is the only thing to spur attraction - need i say more on that?

Long and short of it is that Fass' attitude towards bisexuals has bothered me for quite a bit, so I'm actually saying something about it.

EDIT: I've seen this attitude from Fass on several threads throughout the boards, so he can't claim that it's a debate tactic, unless he uses it excessively, and on topics that have no relevance to sexuality.

Is this half as fun as it sounds? ;)

I see I'm not the only one who picked up on this and yes, yes it is!

Anyone can say they meant to have more emphasis on the word "probably".

Sneaky of me to put it in there, way back before thw whole thing took off, I guess.

I'd imagine it has been pretty sneaky of me to use phrases like "Therefore, I could assume that there is no such thing as 'bisexuality'..." or "I just think you swing very much to one extreme..." or "in what seems to be a fluid medium..." and "I'm certainly not going to pretend it seems unlikely, just to spare the squeamishness of one or two individuals..."

All the way through, I have illustrated it as opinion and conjecture... how it 'appears'... what I 'think'.... what I find 'likely'.

My opening statement is far from out-of-context with that.

I am gay.
I have bisexual friends.
I know bisexuality exists.

I believe that Fass is full of shit on the topic.
I also believe that Grave_i_idle is full of shit on the topic.

I have no idea why Fass seems to want to turn the attitude that gay people receive from a large minority of the world onto another group within the GLBT sphere. (See, Fass, it's even in the name.)

Sexuality isn't binary. But neither is it very mutable. That's what I know, personally, to be true.

Also, Fass, that study that you posted about bisexual males? I read it and instantly got an uncomfortable feeling, like something was wrong - and there were several.

-the size of the representative groups were too small - 30 people hardly defines a sexuality
-the manner in which the 'nonconclusive' results were treated - straight and gay people not physically aroused by their porn of choice were thrown out as erroneous data, but bi people not physically aroused were treated as 'not bi'
-the assumption that lust is the only thing to spur attraction - need i say more on that?

Long and short of it is that Fass' attitude towards bisexuals has bothered me for quite a bit, so I'm actually saying something about it.

EDIT: I've seen this attitude from Fass on several threads throughout the boards, so he can't claim that it's a debate tactic, unless he uses it excessively, and on topics that have no relevance to sexuality.

Wow. Some people just don't seem to get it.

A while ago, in a thread far, far away from this one, I was told by a stupid bisexual everyone was bisexual. No matter how much I told him I was not bisexual, he continued to claim I was. I decided to deny bisexuality, to see if and how the bisexuals would take it when they were told they were something by someone else. I did it in several threads, because I kept seeing bisexuals spout such stupid nonsense.

And here we have the result. They just simply didn't get it, but acted all indignant, the hypocrisy of their own ways completly lost on them.

I will repeat this for the last bloody time: I DO NOT, I REPEAT, NOT BELIEVE THAT BISEXUALITY DOESN'T EXIST. I DENIED IT TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT HOW STUPID IT IS TO CLAIM THAT WHAT PEOPLE "TRULY" ARE - AND YES, IT IS EQUALLY STUPID TO CLAIM EVERYONE IS BISEXUAL AS IT IS TO CLAIM THAT NOBODY IS.

Was that clear enough for even you to understand?

I also believe that Grave_i_idle is full of shit on the topic.


Any particular reason?

Wow. Some people just don't seem to get it.

A while ago, in a thread far, far away from this one, I was told by a stupid bisexual everyone was bisexual. No matter how much I told him I was not bisexual, he continued to claim I was. I decided to deny bisexuality, to see if how the bisexuals would take it when they were told they were something by someone else.

And here we have the result. They just simply didn't get it, but acted all idignant, the hypocrisy of their own ways completly lost on them.

I will repeat this for the last bloody time: I DO NOT, I REPEAT, NOT BELIEVE THAT BISEXUALITY DOESN'T EXIST. I DENIED IT TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT HOW STUPID IT IS TO CLAIM THAT WHAT PEOPLE "TRULY" ARE - AND YES, IT IS EQUALLY STUPID TO CLAIM EVERYONE IS BISEXUAL AS IT IS TO CLAIM THAT NOBODY IS.

Was that clear enough for even you to understand?

You portray a (false) viewpoint for pages and pages then get indignant when a few people did not pick up on the first feew posts that clue us in on the fact that it was not your true belief?

Wow

I would like to see the study that came to this conclusion. Do you have a reference?
Yes

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article344932.ece

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the age differences between most of the women I date and myself. Half-hidden was expressing a degree of surprise at the age difference between Pure Metal and Glitziness, which is only 4 years! The difference between my age and the age of my current g/f is almost 30 years. :D

Ain't nuffin' but a number. :)
Not quite. The experiences that shape the mind of two people far apart chronologically will be significantly different.

Especially for teenagers. The difference in maturity between a 16 year old and a 20 year old is huge IMO. But hey, PM is probably a rather immature 20-year old!

Thirty years difference is strange but if that's what you like there's no problem. I personally don't think I would like a generation gap.

sex-addict = 90% of the population. :p
Not really. It's not considered sex addiction if it's majority thing. Then it's just "normal rates of sexual activity". Sex addiction, or as it is called in medical circles now, hypersexuality, is doing it more than three times daily.

Seeing how The Half-Hidden is from Ireland, where the age of consent is 17, I think his shock was due to the Illegal aspect of it. Just a guess though...
It has nothing to do with the law.

You portray a (false) viewpoint for pages and pages then get indignant when a few people did not pick up on the first feew posts that clue us in on the fact that it was not your true belief?

Wow

Not even the first thread it's been in.

So - to 'get it', you have to (apparently) have read an entire back-catalogue...

You portray a (false) viewpoint for pages and pages then get indignant when a few people did not pick up on the first feew posts that clue us in on the fact that it was not your true belief? Wow

Few? My second proper post in this thread revealed my intentions. Most every subsequent post of mine here has been proclaiming how stupid it is to claim what someone "truly" is. Even my signature reveals it!

You know what, fuck it. I don't care what you think I think about bisexuality. People like you don't read threads. You're just johnny-come-latelies who speak out of your asses on something you haven't even read. Enjoy yourself.

Few? My second proper post in this thread revealed my intentions. Most every subsequent post of mine here has been proclaiming how stupid it is to claim what someone "truly" is. Even my signature reveals it!

You know what, fuck it. I don't care what you think I think about bisexuality. People like you don't read threads. You're just johnny-come-latelies who speak out of your asses on something you haven't even read. Enjoy yourself.
Alright I hope to do so ... why post if you do not enjoy it

but at a point, it is pretty pointless to consider youself bisexual if you are 99.999% gay.

I agree. The word doesn't really mean much at that point. But, if such a person ever found themselves wanting a member of the opposite sex, their response to it might be, "Ok, I must be a little bit bisexual." *shrug*

even if you are 75% gay.

I don't know about that one. Depending on how things pan out, using the label "homosexual" at that point might confuse people, when you go to hit on a member of the opposite sex 25% of the time (assuming you actually act on it).

And your proof for this would be???

The fact that I have seen a spectrum? I have seen those who are at or near 100% attracted only to males or at or near 100% only attracted to females. I have seen those who are damn near 50/50, and those who fall in all sorts of places in between. This would suggest that sexuality is much more of a spectrum than some set of 2 or 3 discrete orientations.

There is also the fact that the species most closely related to humans are largely bisexual, so it would follow that, at least to some point, many humans would be as well.

But the idea of the spectrum has been around for a while, and I've seen nothing to discredit it. Do you have any evidence that sexuality does not exist on such a spectrum?

-the assumption that lust is the only thing to spur attraction - need i say more on that?
Wait. Are you seriously saying it isn’t?

I'm not at all surprised that many homosexuals react badly to being told that 'everyone is bisexual'.

We still live in homophobic world, where 'coming out' is a big deal and there are people who will either constantly attack you for being 'wrong,' or will make out as if it's just a 'lifestyle choice that can be 'corrected''.

Now imagine that you are gay, and have to constantly put up with this attitude that you are somehow a 'heterosexual gone wrong'. Imagine that someone now says 'we are all bisexual;' ie, you are attracted to the opposite sex, even just a little bit. Would this not strike you as being just another way of attacking homosexuality as a 'choice', not a fact?

I don't see how it actually could be, although it makes more sense to me now that so many homosexual people seem offended by the very idea of bisexuality. Who we are attracted to is never a choice, at least not as far as I can tell. If one person is exclusively attracted to men, that's the way it is for them. If another is mostly attracted to men, but sometimes also attracted to women, that's the way it is for them. And so on...

Being attracted to both genders doesn't mean you have chosen your sexuality, it just means that you are attracted to members of either sex.

I don't see how it actually could be, although it makes more sense to me now that so many homosexual people seem offended by the very idea of bisexuality. Who we are attracted to is never a choice, at least not as far as I can tell. If one person is exclusively attracted to men, that's the way it is for them. If another is mostly attracted to men, but sometimes also attracted to women, that's the way it is for them. And so on...

Being attracted to both genders doesn't mean you have chosen your sexuality, it just means that you are attracted to members of either sex.

I dont think that homosexuals are offended by the very idea of bisexuality, I think that people are offended that others would tell them what their sexuality is.

I don't think anyone is bisexual. You're gay or straight, not both. "Bisexual" just means that you're not sureyet, but you're just expirimenting so you can know. OR, your just saying it to get girls (girls in my school are attracted to that for some reason. I'd rather keep my straightness then possibly hinder it with lies like that).

Also, if the person who made this thread was trying to imitate South Park's Mr. Macky, it's "Mm-kayy" not "Ohh-kayy. Nice try though. "E" for effort. Seriously, no offense.

Wait. Are you seriously saying it isn’t?

Um. I hope you're being sarcastic, but I'll treat it like you weren't.

Yes. That is what I'm saying.

There are guys that I find neither attractive nor unattractive who become attractive once I get to know them, find out their interests, and gauge their personality. It also works in reverse. An extremely attractive person with a shallow personality and few interests outside 'looking pretty', becomes intrinsically unattractive to me.

Then again, this is more anecdotal than anything. I always just assumed that intellectual people weren't shallow. *shrug*

I dont think that homosexuals are offended by the very idea of bisexuality, I think that people are offended that others would tell them what their sexuality is.

I have met homosexuals who truly held to the "bisexuality doesn't exist" line. I once hung out with a guy for a bit who insisted on referring to me as the "cute little lesbian," because I had pointed out that I was bisexual. He was convinced that I would eventually realize that I was really just a lesbian.

Fass may have simply been a parody of the viewpoint, but it is out there. If it is seen as a threat because someone might think that it adds to the "choice" debate, I could see why, although someone who understands what is being said wouldn't think it was any more of a choice.

I don't think anyone is bisexual. You're gay or straight, not both.

So what does that make me? I'm sexually attracted to both men and women. I'm not "experimenting so I can know." I've already done all the experimentation I want to, and I know where I stand. I'm still pretty damn sure that I am attracted to both men and women.

I don't think anyone is bisexual. You're gay or straight, not both. "Bisexual" just means that you're not sureyet, but you're just expirimenting so you can know. OR, your just saying it to get girls (girls in my school are attracted to that for some reason. I'd rather keep my straightness then possibly hinder it with lies like that).

Also, if the person who made this thread was trying to imitate South Park's Mr. Macky, it's "Mm-kayy" not "Ohh-kayy. Nice try though. "E" for effort. Seriously, no offense.
I first dated a female for 9 months ... then a male for 2 years now I have been with a female for just a little over 2 years now

I have enjoyed dating both

If you dont think I exist fine but I have spent about 8 years knowing I am bisexual and that has not changed ... if I have just not "found out" I must be rather dull as I am long out of highschool and it is most deffinatly not "for the girls"

I don't think anyone is bisexual. You're gay or straight, not both. "Bisexual" just means that you're not sureyet, but you're just expirimenting so you can know. OR, your just saying it to get girls (girls in my school are attracted to that for some reason. I'd rather keep my straightness then possibly hinder it with lies like that).

Also, if the person who made this thread was trying to imitate South Park's Mr. Macky, it's "Mm-kayy" not "Ohh-kayy. Nice try though. "E" for effort. Seriously, no offense.
You obviously haven't met anyone openly bisexual yet. The part about "not being sure yet" can only apply in the case of some bisexual teenagers: yes, occasionnally it's a mean of saying they're not sure.

You can't very well argue that a 30 years old adult, who's had meaningful relationships with both sexes through his life and states he is sexually attracted to both genders and has always been "is just not sure yet".

Fass may have simply been a parody of the viewpoint, but it is out there. If it is seen as a threat because someone might think that it adds to the "choice" debate, I could see why, although someone who understands what is being said wouldn't think it was any more of a choice.

I don't see why people get so ruffled up about the "choice" argument.

Why the hell should I care whether or not someone thinks I chose to be gay? I didn't, but even if I did, I bloody hell am gonna fuck whoever I want. Nobody has a moral right to tell others who they should love or who they should get into their bed. The entire issue is moot.

I guess that's why I don't feel the need to disprove bisexuality: I couldn't care less about the "choice or not" issue.

Most people, to some extent, are bisexual. Maybe subconsiously, but it is the case. Of course most people are certainly a good deal more attracted to a person of the opposite sex, but there's still that bisexual side hanging around somewhere.

I don't see why people get so ruffled up about the "choice" argument.

Why the hell should I care whether or not someone thinks I chose to be gay? I didn't, but even if I did, I bloody hell am gonna fuck whoever I want. Nobody has a moral right to tell others who they should love or who they should get into their bed. The entire issue is moot.

I guess that's why I don't feel the need to disprove bisexuality: I couldn't care less about the "choice or not" issue.

Thing is, if it's biological, that demolishes the Christian argument against homosexuality as 'not created by God' and 'sinful'. If it's a choice, then it bolsters their argument.

I've been on the receiving end of a spiel from a self-hating gay Christian saying how it has to be a choice. Not fun.

Thing is, if it's biological, that demolishes the Christian argument against homosexuality as 'not created by God' and 'sinful'. If it's a choice, then it bolsters their argument.

I've been on the receiving end of a spiel from a self-hating gay Christian saying how it has to be a choice. Not fun.

The sad thing is, unless they believe that human beings somehow taught animals to also have a spectrum of sexuality, there is no way to logically argue that (a) God created all things and (b) God did not create homosexuality. *shrug*

But then again, there are two ways to deal with information that doesn't mesh with religious views. You either change your religious view, or your view of the world. Seems to me that it is generally much more logical to do the former.

The sad thing is, unless they believe that human beings somehow taught animals to also have a spectrum of sexuality, there is no way to logically argue that (a) God created all things and (b) God did not create homosexuality. *shrug*

But then again, there are two ways to deal with information that doesn't mesh with religious views. You either change your religious view, or your view of the world. Seems to me that it is generally much more logical to do the former.

I agree with every point you make, but the thing is, I personally know people who, when something challenges their worldview, stick their fingers in their ears and continue on like nothing happened.

I just want conclusive biological evidence of genetically-derived sexuality, so the debate will go away. Even predisposition would almost be good enough for me - the only thing that would annoy me about that would be all the parenting books on how to make sure your kids don't catch gay.

Thing is, if it's biological, that demolishes the Christian argument against homosexuality as 'not created by God' and 'sinful'. If it's a choice, then it bolsters their argument.

I've been on the receiving end of a spiel from a self-hating gay Christian saying how it has to be a choice. Not fun.
Again, at the risk of repeating myself: even if it were a choice, which it isn't, those so-called Christians should just mind their own damn business and stop putting their nose where it doesn't belong.


Choice is a non-issue. Nobody has a right to tell me who I should be screwing. No point arguing with them over whether it's a choice or not. No one gets to control other's sexuality.

I agree with every point you make, but the thing is, I personally know people who, when something challenges their worldview, stick their fingers in their ears and continue on like nothing happened.

I just want conclusive biological evidence of genetically-derived sexuality, so the debate will go away. Even predisposition would almost be good enough for me - the only thing that would annoy me about that would be all the parenting books on how to make sure your kids don't catch gay.

I've looked into a lot of the literature on this, and I don't think we can have conclusive evidence that any sexuality is purely genetic - the evidence just doesn't go there. Of course, "not genetic" does not mean "not innate." In truth, sexuality is a complicated trait that seems to exist along a spectrum, which means that it is probably influenced by all sorts of factors.

There certainly is evidence for a genetic factor to it. For instance, the maternal female relatives of gay men are more likely to be very fertile than the same relatives of straight men, suggesting that there might be a genetic link which contributes to fecundity in females, and homosexuality in men. There is also, while not 100%, a higher correlation in twin studies than would be expected if there were no genetic components at all.

There is also the issue of the environment in the womb. Animal studies have shown that exposure to different levels of hormones in the womb can contribute to various sexualities. Researchers have increased the percentage of homosexual animals by altering hormone levels.

There is also the very interesting correlation of birth order to sexuality. The more male children a woman has, the more likely the later males are to be gay. The theory on this one is that her immune system causes it in some way. When a woman first has a male child, her immune system is exposed to proteins from the Y chromosome - something it has never seen. Her system becomes "chimeric" at that point. It may then alter something about her physiology that then contributes to homosexuality in her later male children.

And we cannot rule out the possibility of early childhood experiences either.


I think the problem is that so many people want an absolute, black and white answer that just isn't there.

Choice is a non-issue. Nobody has a right to tell me who I should be screwing. No point arguing with them over whether it's a choice or not. No one gets to control other's sexuality.

But you see, they seem to feel it is and that they have that right. One of the major reasons I had an episode of depression when the Conservative party won.

<snip>
And we cannot rule out the possibility of early childhood experiences either.


I think the problem is that so many people want an absolute, black and white answer that just isn't there.
I would certainly hope that we could rule out early childhood experiences, because otherwise we'll have religious crazies shielding their babies from people they think are homosexual, and things just going wonky from there.

With regards to genetics, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if sexuality was controlled by a half-dozen or more genes, and that was the reason why geneticists haven't found it yet.

Debates about homosexuality will continue until either that black-and-white factor has been found, homosexuals cease to exist, or people who are anti-homosexual get over it. And frankly, the first is more likely than the other two.

Snip

I would certainly hope that we could rule out early childhood experiences, because otherwise we'll have religious crazies shielding their babies from people they think are homosexual, and things just going wonky from there.

Snip
Yeah people will be idiots its probably more molestation rather then pressence of homosexuals that is one of the factors (I think it might have been for me ... )

But I would doubt they would see that as they dont want to

But you see, they seem to feel it is and that they have that right. One of the major reasons I had an episode of depression when the Conservative party won.

Again, might be more useful in the long actually hammering that simple thruth into their tiny, hard little heads: they have no right to try and control other people's sexuality.

And, don't fret about the conservatives: their hands are tied, and they know better than to lose their fragile voter base by doing anything extreme. Gays have been marrying for a couple of years now, and everybody's had a chance to realise that anarchy, social chaos and rains of fire aren't coming down to destroy our beautiful country like the catholic church predicted.


I would certainly hope that we could rule out early childhood experiences, because otherwise we'll have religious crazies shielding their babies from people they think are homosexual, and things just going wonky from there.

With regards to genetics, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if sexuality was controlled by a half-dozen or more genes, and that was the reason why geneticists haven't found it yet.

Debates about homosexuality will continue until either that black-and-white factor has been found, homosexuals cease to exist, or people who are anti-homosexual get over it. And frankly, the first is more likely than the other two.
Ealry childhood experience can be discounted: never had any homosexually oriented experience until age 19, and yet I'm as gay as any male is ever going to be.

Likewise, childrens and teenagers played and wanked with their same-sex buddies for centuries, and that never made them any more gay than those who didn't. In fact, I'm mildly jealous that some of my straight friends got to experiment that way and I didn't.

There will not be a black-and-white factor discovered on this: sexuality is a continuum, not a dichotomy. The most conclusive we're likely to ever find is genetic predispositions. Whether those predispositions develop or not will depend on chance and/or forces we don't understand. Personally, I chose to work on making solution number 3 a reality.

Yeah people will be idiots its probably more molestation rather then pressence of homosexuals that is one of the factors (I think it might have been for me ... )

Molestation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't being molested by someone of the same sex as a kid make you more likely to hate/fear sexual relations with someone of your gender, rather than crave it?

Um. I hope you're being sarcastic, but I'll treat it like you weren't.
I wasn't.
There are guys that I find neither attractive nor unattractive who become attractive once I get to know them, find out their interests, and gauge their personality.
You were attracted to them from the beginning, you just didn’t know it.
As for the ones you find unattractive, you’d fuck them if you had the chance, I assure you. Not trying to insult you. Anybody would, under the right circumstances, fuck an attractive person that they “hated.”
Then again, this is more anecdotal than anything. I always just assumed that intellectual people weren't shallow. *shrug*
You'd be wrong.

Again, might be more useful in the long actually hammering that simple thruth into their tiny, hard little heads: they have no right to try and control other people's sexuality.

And, don't fret about the conservatives: their hands are tied, and they know better than to lose their fragile voter base by doing anything extreme. Gays have been marrying for a couple of years now, and everybody's had a chance to realise that anarchy, social chaos and rains of fire aren't coming down to destroy our beautiful country like the catholic church predicted.
Well, the episode only lasted until I realized that the BQ would take the Conservatives down if they tried any anti-gay crap.

Ealry childhood experience can be discounted: never had any homosexually oriented experience until age 19, and yet I'm as gay as any male is ever going to be.

Likewise, childrens and teenagers played and wanked with their same-sex buddies for centuries, and that never made them any more gay than those who didn't. In fact, I'm mildly jealous that some of my straight friends got to experiment that way and I didn't.

There will not be a black-and-white factor discovered on this: sexuality is a continuum, not a dichotomy. The most conclusive we're likely to ever find is genetic predispositions. Whether those predispositions develop or not will depend on chance and/or forces we don't understand. Personally, I chose to work on making solution number 3 a reality.
For me, it was 17, and ditto for the second paragraph.

Frankly, it's a lot easier to see a continuum created by genes if you consider the simplest form of genetic forecasting, the Punnett Square. Even three genes, with the parents heterozygous for both create a wide diversity.

To see what I'm talking about, go to this link:
http://www.changbioscience.com/genetics/punnett.html

When here, for parental genotypes, select the last option for both. It illustrates my point beautifully, I think.

Molestation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't being molested by someone of the same sex as a kid make you more likely to hate/fear sexual relations with someone of your gender, rather than crave it?
Not from anything I have heard no ... people seem to be idiodic and tend to gravitate twards people that were a strong influance (good or bad) in their life

I got to run home but I had a whole host of good studies on this will get them to ya in a bit

You were attracted to them from the beginning, you just didn’t know it.
Ah, thank you for unlocking the secrets of my brain. If I have any more questions about myself, can I come to you? Obviously you know me better than I know myself.

As for the ones you find unattractive, you’d fuck them if you had the chance, I assure you. Not trying to insult you. Anybody would, under the right circumstances, fuck an attractive person that they “hated.”
Frankly, I do find it insulting. Maybe you aren't, but I'm in enough control of my sex drive to not have sex with someone to whom I don't feel an emotional attraction. See my original point about knowing me better than I know myself. 'The right circumstances' have nothing to do with anything - my Id isn't all-consuming, thanks.

You were attracted to them from the beginning, you just didn’t know it.As for the ones you find unattractive, you’d fuck them if you had the chance, I assure you. Not trying to insult you. Anybody would, under the right circumstances, fuck an attractive person that they “hated.”

Very wrong, and even mildly condescending. I have, on repeated occasions, abstained from fucking attractive but inanely stupid and superficial men. Some of us prefer meaningful lovemaking to empty sexual relationships based on lust and superficiality, not out of purported moral superiority, but simply because it suits us better.

Don't pretend to extend your thoughts, actions and motives to everyone. Just because you think and act in a certain manner doesn't make this an absolute that is true for everyone.

Very wrong, and even mildly condescending. I have, on repeated occasions, abstained from fucking attractive but inanely stupid and superficial men. Some of us prefer meaningful lovemaking to empty sexual relationships based on lust and superficiality, not out of purported moral superiority, but simply because it suits us better.

Don't pretend to extend your thoughts, actions and motives to everyone. Just because you think and act in a certain manner doesn't make this an absolute that is true for everyone.
Thank you.

Ah, thank you for unlocking the secrets of my brain. If I have any more questions about myself, can I come to you? Obviously you know me better than I know myself.
Most people don’t understand the inner workings of their own brain.
Frankly, I do find it insulting. Maybe you aren't, but I'm in enough control of my sex drive to not have sex with someone to whom I don't feel an emotional attraction.
Emotional attraction to an individual is just a justification for lust that only exists because society says it is wrong to fornicate indiscriminately. You would manufacture the emotional attachments if you really needed/wanted to.

Well, the episode only lasted until I realized that the BQ would take the Conservatives down if they tried any anti-gay crap.

See? The Bloc does serve a purpose, besides being the "evil separatist party of doom trying to destroy our beautiful, united country".

Anti-gay or anti-abortion is so out-of-date in Québec that anyone trying to campaign on that would be committing political hara-kiri.


For me, it was 17, and ditto for the second paragraph.

Lucky you. I waited 19 years before getting to do anything sexually, and it lasted 3 years with him. So much for the promiscuity of gay men we keep hearing about. I'm still waiting for a new boyfriend. Haven't had any for like, a year and a half. Thank god for porn.

Emotional attraction to an individual is just a justification for lust that only exists because society says it is wrong to fornicate indiscriminately. You would manufacture the emotional attachments if you really needed/wanted to.
Well, somebody here's a cynical old bitch. And for once I'm not talking about myself.:rolleyes:

Emotional attraction to an individual is just a justification for lust that only exists because society says it is wrong to fornicate indiscriminately. You would manufacture the emotional attachments if you really needed/wanted to.

Provide me with some evidence supported by psychologists, unless you want me to label you as a sex-crazed anarchist and dismiss you as such, because I know to be false from personal experience that which you are telling me to be true.

I know casual sex exists. I have sex with friends (people I have an intimate, emotional attachment to) occasionally. I don't believe that it is appropriate for me to have sexual relations with someone I've known for less than six months, and especially when I don't know who they've been with recently. Are you telling me that that's wrong?

Lucky you. I waited 19 years before getting to do anything sexually, and it lasted 3 years with him. So much for the promiscuity of gay men we keep hearing about. I'm still waiting for a new boyfriend. Haven't had any for like, a year and a half. Thank god for porn.

*shrug* Never had a boyfriend. No guy has ever wanted to date me, for whatever reason. It's either 'you're ugly', 'I'm not looking for a serious relationship right now' or 'You're a great friend but I'm not interested in you in that way'.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Ladayna/me.jpg <- me

Most people don’t understand the inner workings of their own brain.

Emotional attraction to an individual is just a justification for lust that only exists because society says it is wrong to fornicate indiscriminately. You would manufacture the emotional attachments if you really needed/wanted to.

is this in all instances, or just homosexual relationships?

is this in all instances, or just homosexual relationships?
Presumeably all instances.

Because promiscuity is most definitely not limited to homosexuals, guaranteed. And neither is monogamy restricted to heterosexuals. (As sensible people know.)

Have you ever noticed that gays and bisexuals are a very small precentage of the population yet when something comes up about them they are everywhere many claim to be bi or homo or whatever but the stats show that a very small percentage of people are actually gay or bi. Oh and for those who fight for equal rights for same sex marriages, life partners, what the fuck ever......:upyours: Chances are that in America you stand little chance of getting and holding on to those rights. Why we because we are a gay bashing nation that hates gays. We may be tolerant and teach equality but deep down those of us who are straight and not any form of other sexuality just dont like you. I am talking about a majority of people, so please those of you who are straight dont have to copy my post and say "I have no problem with gays" because the truth is most of you that want to post your topic on here are going to be gay or bisexual. BUT HONESTLY I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GAYS... AS LONG AS YOU STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME AND MY FAMILY... AND YOU DONT TALK TO MUCH... Oh and you stop being gay... and uh the government starts imprisoning you for being gay... and they stop making crap films like Brokeback mountain that wins 3 awards and sucks ass (Honestly I watched it and not so impressed) if you took out the gay factor there was no movie. Nothing good about it just two cowboys butt-fucking each other. Um what can I say to make someone irate............ Ah I give up, wait can someone start a new forum and lets get a vote gay or straight or bi.... That would be cool to see. Oh and I really dont have anything against gays Im just playing..... Or am I?

<cut the crap>
Your post was like you claim Brokeback Mountain to be. Without the 'gay' shit, it had no content.

is this in all instances, or just homosexual relationships?
All instances.
Provide me with some evidence supported by psychologists, unless you want me to label you as a sex-crazed anarchist and dismiss you as such
I am very comfortable with that label.
I don't believe that it is appropriate for me to have sexual relations with someone I've known for less than six months, and especially when I don't know who they've been with recently. Are you telling me that that's wrong?
Not wrong. “Right” and “wrong” are social constructs. They don’t really exist.
It’s just foolish.

It’s just foolish.

Ah, okay. So the entire species being wiped out by HIV/AIDS is preferrable to you than some sexual restraint. Good to know.

Ah, okay. So the entire species being wiped out by HIV/AIDS is preferrable to you than some sexual restraint. Good to know.

just because you have sex with someone you've known for less than 6 months does not mean you will get aids...............

safe sex <3

just because you have sex with someone you've known for less than 6 months does not mean you will get aids...............

safe sex <3

<3 safe sex, too.

Thing is, if you're having intercourse with someone who is positive, and the protection fails, unless you're genetically immune or resistant to HIV, you're going to get it.

EDIT: And given that one in every X amount of condoms will fail, we're talking about a slowly increasing rate of HIV infection, even if everyone does use condoms, which I can guarantee you that not everyone does (for whatever reason - one of my friends is allergic to latex and polyurethane (?) condoms are prohibitively expensive).

<3 safe sex, too.

Thing is, if you're having intercourse with someone who is positive, and the protection fails, unless you're genetically immune or resistant to HIV, you're going to get it.

EDIT: And given that one in every X amount of condoms will fail, we're talking about a slowly increasing rate of HIV infection, even if everyone does use condoms, which I can guarantee you that not everyone does (for whatever reason - one of my friends is allergic to latex).

I doubt anyone is immune to that. >.> Though just be safe.

I doubt anyone is immune to that. >.> Though just be safe.

Nope, there are prostitutes in South Africa who are immune to HIV. Apparrently it's a homozygous recessive mutation that allowed their ancestors to survive the Black Plague.

Researching evidence.

I doubt anyone is immune to that. >.> Though just be safe.
Out of six billon? Got to be a few.
EDIT: And given that one in every X amount of condoms will fail, we're talking about a slowly increasing rate of HIV infection, even if everyone does use condoms, which I can guarantee you that not everyone does (for whatever reason - one of my friends is allergic to latex and polyurethane (?) condoms are prohibitively expensive).
If everyone did use a condom, new instance of HIV/AIDS, would decrees, despite the .1% change of failure if used correctly.

Evidence: http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2000/international-reporting/works/AIDS6.html

<3 safe sex, too.

Thing is, if you're having intercourse with someone who is positive, and the protection fails, unless you're genetically immune or resistant to HIV, you're going to get it.

EDIT: And given that one in every X amount of condoms will fail, we're talking about a slowly increasing rate of HIV infection, even if everyone does use condoms, which I can guarantee you that not everyone does (for whatever reason - one of my friends is allergic to latex and polyurethane (?) condoms are prohibitively expensive).

well, a lot of people are hiv+ and dont even know it! it can lay dormant in your system for years! so knowing someone for six months doesnt make it safe. making them get tested, however, does. and if you want to demand a medical history from all your potential lovers, then that is your perogative. but you dont have to wait 6 months before doing so!

and condom failure is another reason im glad that i dont do it with dudes.

Evidence: http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2000/international-reporting/works/AIDS6.html
*Plans trip to South America.*

I believe in the concept of sexuality as a continuum, and that in some ways we could all be considered bisexual. It follows, therefore, that some people would feel pretty 50/50 about it, and so would be defined as purely bisexual.

well, a lot of people are hiv+ and dont even know it! it can lay dormant in your system for years! so knowing someone for six months doesnt make it safe. making them get tested, however, does. and if you want to demand a medical history from all your potential lovers, then that is your perogative. but you dont have to wait 6 months before doing so!

and condom failure is another reason im glad that i dont do it with dudes.

I don't demand a medical history, just the results of a blood test. And regardless, I don't sleep with people for that long simply because over that period, I can observe them and their habits, that sort of thing. I don't have sex with people I don't intend on keeping near me for an extended period of time. And I don't have sex with people I don't want to be close to. *shrug*

Have you ever noticed that gays and bisexuals are a very small precentage of the population yet when something comes up about them they are everywhere many claim to be bi or homo or whatever but the stats show that a very small percentage of people are actually gay or bi. Oh and for those who fight for equal rights for same sex marriages, life partners, what the fuck ever......:upyours: Chances are that in America you stand little chance of getting and holding on to those rights. Why we because we are a gay bashing nation that hates gays. We may be tolerant and teach equality but deep down those of us who are straight and not any form of other sexuality just dont like you. I am talking about a majority of people, so please those of you who are straight dont have to copy my post and say "I have no problem with gays" because the truth is most of you that want to post your topic on here are going to be gay or bisexual. BUT HONESTLY I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GAYS... AS LONG AS YOU STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME AND MY FAMILY... AND YOU DONT TALK TO MUCH... Oh and you stop being gay... and uh the government starts imprisoning you for being gay... and they stop making crap films like Brokeback mountain that wins 3 awards and sucks ass (Honestly I watched it and not so impressed) if you took out the gay factor there was no movie. Nothing good about it just two cowboys butt-fucking each other. Um what can I say to make someone irate............ Ah I give up, wait can someone start a new forum and lets get a vote gay or straight or bi.... That would be cool to see. Oh and I really dont have anything against gays Im just playing..... Or am I?

Wow. Are most Americans this immature? I've no idea, but giving gay people less rights than straight people shows we need to go a whole lot further to be able to say America values equality over irrelevant distinctions.

First it was black people who had to fight for their rights, and did so through peaceful protest, headed by Martin Luther King. Now it's the turn of gay people. When will America actually live up to it's claim of "justice and liberty for ALL"?

IIRC sexually transmitted HIV has been on the decline in non-3rd world antions for quite a while. IV drug use is the main transmission factor now.


Back to the original topic, sexuality is a spectrum, not an either or. Most people are near the extremes (sort of a reverse bell curve) but, there are some in the middle areas. IOW, of course some people are bisexual, I know several.

Personally, I always found it interesting that the same sexual prejudices exist in such strenght in both hertero and homo sexual communities. I'm primarily refering to promiscuous males are OK, promiscuous females are sluts but, other I've noticed other similarities as well.

Wow. Are most Americans this immature? I've no idea, but giving gay people less rights than straight people shows we need to go a whole lot further to be able to say America values equality over irrelevant distinctions.

First it was black people who had to fight for their rights, and did so through peaceful protest, headed by Martin Luther King. Now it's the turn of gay people. When will America actually live up to it's claim of "justice and liberty for ALL"?

As long as there is someone to oppress in the name of God, America will be there doing it.

Personally, I always found it interesting that the same sexual prejudices exist in such strenght in both hertero and homo sexual communities. I'm primarily refering to promiscuous males are OK, promiscuous females are sluts but, other I've noticed other similarities as well.
Disagree.

Promiscuous people, regardless of gender, are... promiscuous. I tend to be less accepting of it if the people don't know each other, but that's a personal prejudice.

Society's dichotomy, however, is irrational, and ties in with abortion issues and the crazy beliefs that some people have with regards to sex. Regardless, that tangent is off-topic.

I find it hard to fathom that anyone can be 100% straight or 100% gay for that matter. If one can acknowledge that another of the same sex is attractive, it obviously takes some intution on their part ... if they were completely gay, such a discernment would be impossible

I find it hard to fathom that anyone can be 100% straight or 100% gay for that matter. If one can acknowledge that another of the same sex is attractive, it obviously takes some intution on their part ... if they were completely gay, such a discernment would be impossible
Disagree.

I can find a female's body aesthetically pleasing in the same sense that I find a CDI Smart or a certain brand of microwave oven aesthetically pleasing. I don't have to want to have sex with the Smart car or the microwave oven to find them 'beautiful'.

Disagree.

I can find a female's body aesthetically pleasing in the same sense that I find a CDI Smart or a certain brand of microwave oven aesthetically pleasing. I don't have to want to have sex with the Smart car or the microwave oven to find them 'beautiful'.

I am not arguing that you would have to find someone of your own sex "beautiful" to appreciate their attractiveness - I am simply saying that sexuality is not a solidly defined area. The brain associates human beings and objects seperately, finding an oven aesthetically pleasing is not related to finding a human being aesthetically pleasing. In order to recognize the contours and shapes that could cause you to find another girl pleasing to the eye - precedent must be established, there is reinforcement of this image in your brain. If your mind disagreed with these images as unattractive, you would not find that person aesthetically pleasing. All I'm trying to say is - finding someone of your own sex pleasing to the eye is not the same as admiring an inanimate object.

I think what it comes down to is bisexuality is more of a "gender blindness". It's not so much a matter of being attracted to both sexes as much as it is failure to make a distinction between sexes. Some people happen to think green eyes are really sexy. Some people like blue eyes. Some people don't even notice eye color until someone else points it out to them. I would think the same sort of "logic" applies.

And no, I didn't read all 29 pages of this post.

I am not arguing that you would have to find someone of your own sex "beautiful" to appreciate their attractiveness - I am simply saying that sexuality is not a solidly defined area. The brain associates human beings and objects seperately, finding an oven aesthetically pleasing is not related to finding a human being aesthetically pleasing. In order to recognize the contours and shapes that could cause you to find another girl pleasing to the eye - precedent must be established, there is reinforcement of this image in your brain. If your mind disagreed with these images as unattractive, you would not find that person aesthetically pleasing. All I'm trying to say is - finding someone of your own sex pleasing to the eye is not the same as admiring an inanimate object.

And what I'm trying to point out is that simply because someone can agree that someone's body, face, eyes, et cetera, are pleasing to the eye, doesn't necessarily mean that they're attracted to the gender in question.

I think what it comes down to is bisexuality is more of a "gender blindness". It's not so much a matter of being attracted to both sexes as much as it is failure to make a distinction between sexes. Some people happen to think green eyes are really sexy. Some people like blue eyes. Some people don't even notice eye color until someone else points it out to them. I would think the same sort of "logic" applies.

And no, I didn't read all 29 pages of this post.

Vaginas and penises would be easily differentiated in a passing glance, unlike green and blue eyes.

A failure to distinguish the sexes implies a blindness, yes, but a physical one, not a mental one. Bisexuality, as far as I'm concerned, is simply a combination of hetero- and homo- sexuality. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bisexuals are not enlightened, but neither are they depraved. They just have a wider pool to choose from when selecting a prospective partner.

And what I'm trying to point out is that simply because someone can agree that someone's body, face, eyes, et cetera, are pleasing to the eye, doesn't necessarily mean that they're attracted to the gender in question.

Point taken - Yet, I still feel that in order to find someone of the same gender's features pleasing, one cannot be 100% straight.

Point taken - Yet, I still feel that in order to find someone of the same gender's features pleasing, one cannot be 100% straight.
Not really. All they have to do is put it into a perspective such as 'If someone of <gender> had that <feature>...'

*shrug*

Evidence: http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2000/international-reporting/works/AIDS6.html

They lost their "immunity."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/619316.stm

However it is believed that between 1% to 10% of europeans are resistant to HIV. They think it may have something to do with the black death and those who survived carring a gene varient that provides a degre of immunity to HIV.

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1635

Also, HIV isn't all that easy to get. It typically requires several exposures before you get it. You CAN get it from just one broken condom, however it is not very likely. So calm down a bit. One broken condom doesn't equal a death sentence any more than it automatically equals pregnancy for a straight coupls.

Take it from someone who has bitten the bullet several times. Back in the 80s when I was young and stupid I sometimes had unprotected sex. And several of the people I did so with have since died of AIDS. But almost 20 years later I still test negative.

Disagree.

I can find a female's body aesthetically pleasing in the same sense that I find a CDI Smart or a certain brand of microwave oven aesthetically pleasing. I don't have to want to have sex with the Smart car or the microwave oven to find them 'beautiful'.

Same. Otherwise I'd hae married my comp. :O

one of my friends is allergic to latex and polyurethane (?) condoms are prohibitively expensive).

Some guys just use that as an excuse. One guy I was into said he was alergic to latex. I told him I'd pick up some latex free ones (Trojan Supra is an inexpensive brand of polyurethane condoms) which he insisted didn't exist. When I produced evidence, he backed out. Turns out he's only into "bare backing" and was lying about being alergic to latex. A shocking number of guys are like that.

*shrug* Never had a boyfriend. No guy has ever wanted to date me, for whatever reason. It's either 'you're ugly', 'I'm not looking for a serious relationship right now' or 'You're a great friend but I'm not interested in you in that way'.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Ladayna/me.jpg <- me

You're a good looking guy. I'll be your boyfriend ... for some of that sweet sweet canadian citizenship. :D

Some guys just use that as an excuse. One guy I was into said he was alergic to latex. I told him I'd pick up some latex free ones (Trojan Supra is an inexpensive brand of polyurethane condoms) which he insisted didn't exist. When I produced evidence, he backed out. Turns out he's only into "bare backing" and was lying about being alergic to latex. A shocking number of guys are like that.
Well, these are close friends of mine that I've known for several years. I've seen the horrible rashes he gets from latex gloves when forced to wear them.

You're a good looking guy. I'll be your boyfriend ... for some of that sweet sweet canadian citizenship. :D
*snickers* Yeah. I can't imagine why *anyone* would want to get out of the US right now. But I'm a little young for marriage to you! :O After all, you were having sex in the 80s, and I was *born* in the 80s! *chuckles*
Chronological age means nothing to me, to be honest, so long as the person's not old enough to make my parents look young and so long as they don't think that the age difference entitles them to 'sugar daddy'-dom. It's all about the mental maturity.

And RE: prostitute immunity to HIV, that's ... disappointing. I was kinda hoping that we could go back to worrying about chlamydia and stuff like that, instead of worrying about death.

I find myself equally attracted to both sexes. I think women are beautiful with sensuous curves and I enjoy breasts immensely. I generally prefer smaller breasts -the opposite of myself I suppose, but all breasts are nice. I like men because... well, they do have that dangly thing between their legs. Ok, men have great qualities also, but don't ask me to think of them right now.

Either way, I am currently in a monogamous (monotonous?) relationship with a man right now, however I am not opposed to a relationship with a woman in the slightest.

I'm not gay in denial because I couldn't replace a man with a dildo. I'm not a horny straight chick... well, I am horny, but that's not the point. To me, if someone is "straight" they wouldn't have intercourse with someone of the same sex. In my case, it's far too late to pretend I'm straight. So what am I if not bi?

Well, these are close friends of mine that I've known for several years. I've seen the horrible rashes he gets from latex gloves when forced to wear them.

Fair enough.


*snickers* Yeah. I can't imagine why *anyone* would want to get out of the US right now. But I'm a little young for marriage to you! :O After all, you were having sex in the 80s, and I was *born* in the 80s! *chuckles*
Chronological age means nothing to me, to be honest, so long as the person's not old enough to make my parents look young and so long as they don't think that the age difference entitles them to 'sugar daddy'-dom. It's all about the mental maturity.


Bah. My ex was 31 when we met (I was 18). I'm (a very youthful *lol*) 36 now (pic in link in my sig). But yes, 20 is a little young for marrage to anyone. I've dated some guys about my parents age, but none older. Age isn't really an issue for me either. But that whole "daddy/son" thing is kind of creepy IMO. But to each their own.


And RE: prostitute immunity to HIV, that's ... disappointing. I was kinda hoping that we could go back to worrying about chlamydia and stuff like that, instead of worrying about death.

They may come up with something yet. But don't worry too much about it anyway. Like I said, it's not that easy to catch. If you use common sence precautions, you should be fine.

I think what it comes down to is bisexuality is more of a "gender blindness". It's not so much a matter of being attracted to both sexes as much as it is failure to make a distinction between sexes.

As a bisexual, allow me to correct your misconception.

I am quite able to distinguish between the sexes. I do distinguish between male and female bodies. I am quite aware of the differences, and I find these differences pleasing.

It's much like how I feel about different ethnic groups. I have no trouble distinguishing between a black woman and an east Asian woman. I have no trouble recognizing the physical differences between individuals of differing ethnic makeup. I happen to believe that there are hotties of all ethnic backgrounds, just as there are hotties of both genders.

Think of it like ice cream flavors: if you like several flavors of ice cream equally well, does that mean that you can't distinguish between those flavors?


Some people happen to think green eyes are really sexy. Some people like blue eyes. Some people don't even notice eye color until someone else points it out to them. I would think the same sort of "logic" applies.

And some people notice eye color right off the bat, and happen to find many different eye colours equally beautiful.

I'm not at all surprised that many homosexuals react badly to being told that 'everyone is bisexual'.

We still live in homophobic world, where 'coming out' is a big deal and there are people who will either constantly attack you for being 'wrong,' or will make out as if it's just a 'lifestyle choice that can be 'corrected''.

Now imagine that you are gay, and have to constantly put up with this attitude that you are somehow a 'heterosexual gone wrong'. Imagine that someone now says 'we are all bisexual;' ie, you are attracted to the opposite sex, even just a little bit. Would this not strike you as being just another way of attacking homosexuality as a 'choice', not a fact?
I can understand why homosexuals would feel attacked by that kind of statement. However, that doesn't mean it necessarily is intended as an attack, or that it is (objectively) an attack on them or their sexual orientation.

As many people have pointed out on this thread, it is actually quite silly to assume that human sexuality is a simple gay-straight dichotomy. Given the amazing range and flexibility of the human mind, it is down right insulting for somebody to assert that our brains are that dull.

What little we know about human and primate sexuality currently points to the idea that it would not be beneficial for humans to be "pre-set" as exclusively gay or straight from birth. Our wonderful hefty brains have developed in a way that minimizes the power of instinct over our actions, making it odd to assume that our reproduction would be guided by set-in-stone programming.

Instead, it is far more likely that our sexuality is influenced by a host of elements. Our genetic predispositions may play a part, as may many physiological conditions during gestation and very early childhood. Our environment is almost certainly playing a huge role. Our cultures, our individual families, even our individual experiences within our cultures and our families...all of these contribute to the complicated and marvelous diversity of our sexualities.

Does this mean we "choose" whether to be gay or straight? Hell no.

Does it mean that we may have some conscious control over our sexuality? Probably not, or at least not very much. Our conscious experiences can cause us to view our sexuality in different ways, and we can certainly learn to accept new and different aspects of our sexual selves, but there are obvious limitations. Try looking at a person who you find totally physically unattractive (don't say anything mean to them, though, please!), and then force yourself to find them physically attractive...doesn't work.

Gay individuals have every right to feel threatened, because they ARE threatened! But the problem is that we get side tracked onto this question of whether or not sexuality is innate, when the fact is that IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even if homosexuality were 100% choice, so what?! Religious belief is a choice, and we have religious freedom (nominally). Political belief is a choice, and we are free to hold whatever political beliefs we like.

Gay individuals should quit letting this topic get derailed into debates over nature/nurture. We should keep the focus: no matter why a person is gay, that's their business and not yours. No matter why a person is gay, you have no right to shove your bossy little nose under their bedcovers. Stop looking for justifications for your selfishness and rudeness.

I, for one, have no desire whatsoever to suck dick, or for another guy to ram me. I guess I mustn't exist, because I'm not bisexual.
A lot of straight girls I know don't particularly want to "suck dick" or "get rammed" by a guy. Hell, I like oral sex and heterosexual intercourse, but I don't find your description appealing in the least.

but at a point, it is pretty pointless to consider youself bisexual if you are 99.999% gay. even if you are 75% gay. self-identification and how people understand their identity is VERY important in minority politics. many bisexuals feel left out by the general LGBTQ community movement, and i honestly i think it is because homosexuals are sore that bisexuals are able to move more freely in live and identification.

Yes, homosexuals often express resentment at bisexuals who are able to "pass" as "normal." Does that make it okay for homosexuals to discriminate against bisexuals, or to disrespect bisexual members of the GLBT community?

It's much like how some blacks will discriminate against other black individuals who happen to have fair complexion. Not being "black enough" can get you into big trouble.

I don't think any gay person has the right to question my sexuality. They, of all people, should understand what bullshit that is. Straights sometimes are just clueless, but I don't think there's a gay person in America who doesn't deal with these issues on a regular basis...they've got no excuse for their disrespectful behavior.


I have bisexual friends that i KNOW are going to grow up, abandon their rainbow bumper stickers, and marry rich men. Bisexuals have the ability to jump ship, which homosexuals do not. "well, ive graduated college and im done with experiementing...." -- there is a reason that terms like LUG and BUG exist!
"Jump ship"? So, a bisexual HAS to end up in a gay relationship, otherwise they don't count? A bisexual has to toe the gay party line, or else they're a sell out?

Bullshit.

Devaluing a bisexual's choice of partner is as pathetic and hateful as telling gays that they should just play it straight to fit in.

Also, you seem to imply that your "bisexual friends" are all female, and that they're going to sell out by not only going straight but by becoming hetero gold-diggers...to me, that says nothing about bisexuals in general, but only about your low personal character. As the saying goes, you are who you hang with, and it sounds like you have some pretty lame friends.

Yes, homosexuals often express resentment at bisexuals who are able to "pass" as "normal." Does that make it okay for homosexuals to discriminate against bisexuals, or to disrespect bisexual members of the GLBT community?

It's much like how some blacks will discriminate against other black individuals who happen to have fair complexion. Not being "black enough" can get you into big trouble.

I don't think any gay person has the right to question my sexuality. They, of all people, should understand what bullshit that is. Straights sometimes are just clueless, but I don't think there's a gay person in America who doesn't deal with these issues on a regular basis...they've got no excuse for their disrespectful behavior.


"Jump ship"? So, a bisexual HAS to end up in a gay relationship, otherwise they don't count? A bisexual has to toe the gay party line, or else they're a sell out?

Bullshit.

Devaluing a bisexual's choice of partner is as pathetic and hateful as telling gays that they should just play it straight to fit in.

Also, you seem to imply that your "bisexual friends" are all female, and that they're going to sell out by not only going straight but by becoming hetero gold-diggers...to me, that says nothing about bisexuals in general, but only about your low personal character. As the saying goes, you are who you hang with, and it sounds like you have some pretty lame friends.

Well, one could equally easily attack the company you keep, as a bisexual, when you aren't jumping down the throats of fellow bisexuals who question the sexuality of gay people by claiming everyone is bi, and in not denouncing their "disrespectful behaviour."

That's not what he said at all. He just said he hates the people who are bisexual and flaunt it, claim it's the ONLY real preference, and then go on to end up in heterosexual relationships anyway and use their 'bisexuality' to flaunt their open-mindedness. Hell, I hate those people too. It's every person's choice, which gender[s] they prefer. No person should claim theirs is better or worse than any other.
Do i ever have a deja vu.
Well i normally dont give a fuck what some internet person might think about it, but i am an bisexual who will most likely end up in a hetero partnership. Because i want to have children to which i am the biological father and raise them with a partner with the same relationship to them, their mother. I am fed up with patchwork families and egoistical enough to want to reproduce my genes.
Until i find that person to have a family with i will continue to enjoy having flings with person of both genders.

Well, one could equally easily attack the company you keep, as a bisexual, when you aren't jumping down the throats of fellow bisexuals who question the sexuality of gay people by claiming everyone is bi, and in not denouncing their "disrespectful behaviour."
I'd prefer not to jump down anybody's throat, thanks. I do correct people who try to assert that "everbody is bisexual," because it's obviously untrue. Whatever our innate "programming" may or may not be, the simple reality is that many people are only attracted to individuals of one gender.

The statement that humans may be "innately" bisexual at the beginnings of our lives does not in any way equate to all humans being bisexuals. I think that's where a lot of people get confused.

Based on what we know about humans and our closest primate cousins, it is likely that we start out as a generally blank slate with a few predispositions or "leanings." But when I say "start out," I really mean at the start...I'm talking when we are in utero. By the time we are physically born, there may have been many important factors that have already influenced the shape of our future personality, and our sexuality is included in this. And at that point we still have well over a decade of growth and change before we even begin to sexually mature! Think of the countless ways in which our adult selves are shaped by experiences we may not even consciously remember.

I think it is best for people to view sexuality as an aspect of personality, in one sense. Personality is something that is largely determined without any conscious choice on our part. Try telling a shy person to "just stop being so shy," and see how far you get. Try telling an extrovert to just stop being so out-going. We may be able to exercise a large amount of control over how we act, and we can even force ourselves to act directly against our natures in many cases, but only very rarely can we consciously change our inner personality.

Sexuality is probably not much different. We can choose to act straight, or gay, or bisexual, regardless of how we really feel, because we have the power to force ourselves to disobey our natural inclinations. Most of us don't have the ability to consciously change those inclinations, though. And why should we? Should a person who is attracted to brunettes be compelled to pursue redheads? Should a person who is attracted to short men be told they're a pervert until they submit to courting taller men? Does it really matter why somebody likes brunettes, or short men, or tall men?

They are probably the hardest group to identify with certainty when it comes to sexual orientation, simply because a lot of people experiment, or do it for attention, or whatever. But there are plenty of genuine bisexuals. A good friend of mine has gone both ways all her life, so I believe it.
Anyway, I don't see what the big problem is. If someone says they are bisexual, who cares. It's their own business.

Ealry childhood experience can be discounted: never had any homosexually oriented experience until age 19, and yet I'm as gay as any male is ever going to be.

Likewise, childrens and teenagers played and wanked with their same-sex buddies for centuries, and that never made them any more gay than those who didn't. In fact, I'm mildly jealous that some of my straight friends got to experiment that way and I didn't.

None of this means that "early childhood experience can be discounted." It simply means that it's not as straight-forward (pardon the pun) as "see gay things, become a fag."

Your early childhood experiences influenced who you are today. This includes your sexuality. This is simply a fact, as it is for all humans. Does this mean that there was some magic event in your childhood that made you gay? Nope. It is entirely possible that if a different child had lived your exact childhood, and experienced all the same events, they would have turned out differently than you have. This is because the "final product" results from a combination of who we are to begin with AND what happens to us along our way. The same thing happening to two different kids can have completely different outcomes.

I would certainly hope that we could rule out early childhood experiences, because otherwise we'll have religious crazies shielding their babies from people they think are homosexual, and things just going wonky from there.

(a) Reality doesn't necessarily follow what you want it to. There is no reason to rule out early childhood experience, because all sorts of impressions are made at that time. There's no way of knowing how it affects the child and their future sexuality.

(b) By "early childhood experience", I don't necessarily mean, "Gay people the kid knows." It could just be that the child forms a strong emotional attachment to a member of the same sex that then affects what they look for in love later. It could be that someone in their life emits strong pheromones that change something about them. It could be anything, that's the point.

With regards to genetics, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if sexuality was controlled by a half-dozen or more genes, and that was the reason why geneticists haven't found it yet.

It wouldn't surprise me either. Even something that seems as simple as skin color is controlled by no less than five - plus dietary and other environmental factors.

What *would* surprise me, given the evidence to the contrary, is any finding that sexuality was purely genetic.

Debates about homosexuality will continue until either that black-and-white factor has been found, homosexuals cease to exist, or people who are anti-homosexual get over it. And frankly, the first is more likely than the other two.

Chances are then, that the debate will continue forever, while the number of anti-homosexual people dwindles.


Ealry childhood experience can be discounted: never had any homosexually oriented experience until age 19, and yet I'm as gay as any male is ever going to be.

Why do people always equate "early childhood experience" with "early homosexual experience"? We don't begin to know all the things that can affect sexuality. Why confine it to sexual experience?

And, even if nothing in your early childhood affected you, that wouldn't rule it out as a general factor in sexuality.

There will not be a black-and-white factor discovered on this: sexuality is a continuum, not a dichotomy. The most conclusive we're likely to ever find is genetic predispositions. Whether those predispositions develop or not will depend on chance and/or forces we don't understand. Personally, I chose to work on making solution number 3 a reality.

Indeed.

Vaginas and penises would be easily differentiated in a passing glance, unlike green and blue eyes.

A failure to distinguish the sexes implies a blindness, yes, but a physical one, not a mental one. Bisexuality, as far as I'm concerned, is simply a combination of hetero- and homo- sexuality. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bisexuals are not enlightened, but neither are they depraved. They just have a wider pool to choose from when selecting a prospective partner.

Of course, from another viewpoint, one might say that homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply bisexuality, with more restrictions. =)

Choice is a non-issue. Nobody has a right to tell me who I should be screwing. No point arguing with them over whether it's a choice or not. No one gets to control other's sexuality.
Yes they do. The government tells you not to screw children and animals and I think that such laws should exist.

Emotional attraction to an individual is just a justification for lust that only exists because society says it is wrong to fornicate indiscriminately. You would manufacture the emotional attachments if you really needed/wanted to.
Just because society tells him how to feel, does not mean that he does not feel this way, or that he wants to escape cultiral conditioning. Also, remember that the idea of what is attractive, perhaps even the idea of "attractive" is a social construct.

*shrug* Never had a boyfriend. No guy has ever wanted to date me, for whatever reason. It's either 'you're ugly', 'I'm not looking for a serious relationship right now' or 'You're a great friend but I'm not interested in you in that way'.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Ladayna/me.jpg <- me
I think you look fine, but would look better if you had less hair and less beard (which can easily be fixed).

A lot of straight girls I know don't particularly want to "suck dick" or "get rammed" by a guy.
If they don't like oral sex and heterosexual intercourse are they really all that straight?

If they don't like oral sex and heterosexual intercourse are they really all that straight?
The last part of the post you quoted and sniped further explained what was meant by the part you did manage to quote

Edit: Bottle further clarifyed

Maybe it was confusing in the first post and I did not see it cause I got it

If they don't like oral sex and heterosexual intercourse are they really all that straight?
There's a world of difference between "having sex" and "getting rammed." I have no interest in any kind of physical contact with somebody who wants to "ram me." I would prefer to enjoy the company of folks who are interested in getting jiggy, funky, busy, or otherwise nasty with me. :)

But then, as UT pointed out, you knew that already. My original post made my point quite clearly, and you are choosing to be a doof about it. Not sure why, but you go right ahead and have fun with that.

Think of it like ice cream flavors: if you like several flavors of ice cream equally well, does that mean that you can't distinguish between those flavors?




*Now wondering what flavor of ice cream I would be*

Yea, I'm pretty sure it exists. Mainly because I believe my girlfriend to be slightly bisexual or bicurious.

There's a world of difference between "having sex" and "getting rammed." I have no interest in any kind of physical contact with somebody who wants to "ram me." I would prefer to enjoy the company of folks who are interested in getting jiggy, funky, busy, or otherwise nasty with me. :)

But then, as UT pointed out, you knew that already. My original post made my point quite clearly, and you are choosing to be a doof about it. Not sure why, but you go right ahead and have fun with that.
Because they're just insignificant words. "Ramming" points to different ideas in different people's minds. When one person says ramming, they may think "fun, consensual sex" while you might think "borderline rape".

(Incidentally, why is "ramming" worse than "getting nasty"?)

Because they're just insignificant words. "Ramming" points to different ideas in different people's minds. When one person says ramming, they may think "fun, consensual sex" while you might think "borderline rape".

I don't think they're "insignificant" at all. My entire point was that the phrasing is very important.

You see this with homophobic guys all the time...they talk about how all gay sex involves some hairy, smelly, sweaty guy shoving you over a chair and ramming you in the ass. Well gosh, most STRAIGHT WOMEN don't like the idea of that kind of sex, so what the hell does it have to do with the issue of homosexuality?


(Incidentally, why is "ramming" worse than "getting nasty"?)
Somebody who wants to "ram me" is significantly different from somebody who wants to get jiggy WITH ME.

Remember, I am bisexual. I don't distinguish sex into the black-and-white categories that many people do. For me, there is much more difference between a man "ramming me" and a man "getting jiggy with me" than there is between a man getting jiggy with me and a woman getting jiggy with me. The first two are utterly and completely different sexual experiences, one of which is totally aversive and the other which is enjoyable, while the second two are more alike than they are different (to me at least).

Bisexuals are lucky. They get twice the game.

I'm not at all surprised that many homosexuals react badly to being told that 'everyone is bisexual'.

We still live in homophobic world, where 'coming out' is a big deal and there are people who will either constantly attack you for being 'wrong,' or will make out as if it's just a 'lifestyle choice that can be 'corrected''.

Now imagine that you are gay, and have to constantly put up with this attitude that you are somehow a 'heterosexual gone wrong'. Imagine that someone now says 'we are all bisexual;' ie, you are attracted to the opposite sex, even just a little bit. Would this not strike you as being just another way of attacking homosexuality as a 'choice', not a fact?

Only in exactly the same way it would impact those who declare themselves 'straight'... i.e. it would make no difference.

You seem to be perceiving it as though the idea is that there are no 'gay' people, only bisexuals... but, the idea is more that there are no 'gay' OR 'straight' people, only bisexuals.

Bisexual is probably the wrong term... because it implies two points (which IS appropriate in as much as we have two basic sexes to choose from), but it doesn't well explain what I'm meaning by those 'extremes' just being the endpoints of one shared line, rather than opposite sides of a shared fence.

I don't think they're "insignificant" at all. My entire point was that the phrasing is very important.

You see this with homophobic guys all the time...they talk about how all gay sex involves some hairy, smelly, sweaty guy shoving you over a chair and ramming you in the ass. Well gosh, most STRAIGHT WOMEN don't like the idea of that kind of sex, so what the hell does it have to do with the issue of homosexuality?

Speak for yourself. I find what you just depicted quite arousing.

Speak for yourself. I find what you just depicted quite arousing.
Lol fair enough but in this case word choice is having different effects on different people ... good example actually

I don't think they're "insignificant" at all. My entire point was that the phrasing is very important.

Somebody who wants to "ram me" is significantly different from somebody who wants to get jiggy WITH ME.

Remember, I am bisexual. I don't distinguish sex into the black-and-white categories that many people do. For me, there is much more difference between a man "ramming me" and a man "getting jiggy with me" than there is between a man getting jiggy with me and a woman getting jiggy with me. The first two are utterly and completely different sexual experiences, one of which is totally aversive and the other which is enjoyable, while the second two are more alike than they are different (to me at least).
See these terms mean nothing to me. What is "ramming"? What is "jiggy"? Do these things mean something concrete to everyone, or are they just slang words that point to different images in the minds of different people?

For this reason, someone says (for example) "ram" and you think "oh no" becase perhaps their idea of "ramming" and yours are entirely different. If you shared their idea of it, then your reaction might be significantly different.

Remember, I am bisexual. I don't distinguish sex into the black-and-white categories that many people do.
This definitely sounds like bi-supremacism. Watch out for Fass.

See these terms mean nothing to me. What is "ramming"? What is "jiggy"? Do these things mean something concrete to everyone, or are they just slang words that point to different images in the minds of different people?

For this reason, someone says (for example) "ram" and you think "oh no" becase perhaps their idea of "ramming" and yours are entirely different. If you shared their idea of it, then your reaction might be significantly different.


This definitely sounds like bi-supremacism. Watch out for Fass.

I could be wrong, but I believe the point being made was that 'ramming' is something one person does TO another, and 'getting jiggy' is something one person does WITH another.

At least - that's what those phrases SOUND like they are suggesting.

Well, the episode only lasted until I realized that the BQ would take the Conservatives down if they tried any anti-gay crap.


For me, it was 17, and ditto for the second paragraph.

Frankly, it's a lot easier to see a continuum created by genes if you consider the simplest form of genetic forecasting, the Punnett Square. Even three genes, with the parents heterozygous for both create a wide diversity.

To see what I'm talking about, go to this link:
http://www.changbioscience.com/genetics/punnett.html

When here, for parental genotypes, select the last option for both. It illustrates my point beautifully, I think.

Nevermind, I get it now.

And the last option(Aabb) is two genes, heterozygous for one and homzygous for the other, though I suspect you knew that. Using three heterozygous genes(AaBbCc) gives 27 possible different genotypes, with probabliites ranging from a little over 1.5% to 6.25%

This definitely sounds like bi-supremacism. Watch out for Fass.

Oh, there's no point in bothering. That's just the way they are. Better than the rest of us.

Oh, there's no point in bothering. That's just the way they are. Better than the rest of us.
Oh?

I was not aware that was the way I was.

Though I do find it slightly ironic that (at least my in my impression of what you said) you are using our suposed feeling of superiority in a derogitory mannor to elevate yourself somehow above "us"

Oh?

I was not aware that was the way I was.

Though I do find it slightly ironic that (at least my in my impression of what you said) you are using our suposed feeling of superiority in a derogitory mannor to elevate yourself somehow above "us"

If Fass thinks you better than him, my friend... it would be rude to deny him.

I could be wrong, but I believe the point being made was that 'ramming' is something one person does TO another, and 'getting jiggy' is something one person does WITH another.

At least - that's what those phrases SOUND like they are suggesting.
Thanks for providing a voice of reason.

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the age differences between most of the women I date and myself. Half-hidden was expressing a degree of surprise at the age difference between Pure Metal and Glitziness, which is only 4 years! The difference between my age and the age of my current g/f is almost 30 years. :D

Ain't nuffin' but a number. :)
thank you :)
good man :fluffle:

Seeing how The Half-Hidden is from Ireland, where the age of consent is 17, I think his shock was due to the Illegal aspect of it. Just a guess though...
ah well its 16 here where we are, so a sexual relationship would be legal if we were having sex yet. besides its a matter of maturity as well... like eut says "ain't nuffin' but a number"



i'd like to add that much as i'm fine discussing our relationship on this forum, i don't much like being talked about (behind our backs if you will - subtle difference between being open and sharing round here about "us" and that)... i'm also sick of defending what we have from people who can't just let us be happy :rolleyes:

Oh?

I was not aware that was the way I was.

Though I do find it slightly ironic that (at least my in my impression of what you said) you are using our suposed feeling of superiority in a derogitory mannor to elevate yourself somehow above "us"


Fass is superior to us all.

BOW TO THE MIGHTY FASS!
BOW TO THE MIGHTY FASS!
BOW TO HIM I SAY!

As a bisexual, allow me to correct your misconception.

I am quite able to distinguish between the sexes. I do distinguish between male and female bodies. I am quite aware of the differences, and I find these differences pleasing.

It's much like how I feel about different ethnic groups. I have no trouble distinguishing between a black woman and an east Asian woman. I have no trouble recognizing the physical differences between individuals of differing ethnic makeup. I happen to believe that there are hotties of all ethnic backgrounds, just as there are hotties of both genders.

Think of it like ice cream flavors: if you like several flavors of ice cream equally well, does that mean that you can't distinguish between those flavors?


And some people notice eye color right off the bat, and happen to find many different eye colours equally beautiful.


Thank you for the correction. I happen to be oblivious to many things that other people consider important distinctions, so I had thought the same patterns of thought might apply in other situations. When I was in the Air Force, there was this one guy I would talk to on a regular basis out in the smoking area about anything and everything going on in the world. One day, I had said to him "You know, I've known you for about five years now and I don't know what your name is or where you work in this place." That's how oblivious I can be.

Anyway, carry on.

Theres an American stand-up comic named Ron White, who despite having appeared on Jeff Foxworthy's "Blue-Collar Comedy Tour", is actually quite funny.

He says that everyone is a little gay, and he can prove it.

Ask the straightest guy you can find, if he likes porn.
The obvious answer is "Of course".

Then ask him, "When watching porn, do you like just two girls, or do you like watching a man and a woman having sex?"

"Man and a woman having sex."

"Do you like the guy in the movie to have a small penis, or a large one?"

"Aw no, I like the guy to have a big ol' dick when he's......
huh.....(long pause)..I did not know that about myself.....".

Well then, those people are clearly dumbfucks.

I think I'll agree with him on this one. Bisexuality exists, it's just in a lot of forms. Note: This is my interpretation and is in no way backed up by any type of fancy schmancy research or that nonsense. However I do know at least one of each of these in person.


1.)You have your "real" bisexuals, those that have been sense time immemoriable, and normally will be for the rest of their lives. These are normally the people who actually want to settle down with a partner who can understand the fact that they're bisexual, to the point that he may too be one, but they're not in it squarely for the sex, but actually would be willing to go into a serious relationship with either gender.

2.)Then you have the opposite, or people who just plain like sex. They really don't care if it's male or female as long as it's living and good in bed. Some would argue these too are real bisexuals, however these are the people who, when asked, normally either defy their sexual escapades, or say they'd never get into a serious relationship with the same gender (or the opposite one normally).

3.)Then there are those that are just undecided. Their exploring, or still have one foot in that proverbial closet of theirs. This crowd is the group you hear the most about from gays, who tend to try and get them to get their last foot out the door.

My two cents.

bisexual = just (sexually) greedy ;)

lol,

guess i am a greedy person..oh well.

i think in all seriousness,some people for example are primarily attracted to the opposite sex,yet given the lack of the opposite sex,and a need,have no qualms about engaging with a same sex person they are attracted too to fullfill a need at the moment.
tough question really,because on the face,they are not"gay" yet engage in "gay" behavior.
probably explains the term..bisexual.

I’m of the opinion that nearly everyone is a bit bisexual.
Me too.

Nevermind, I get it now.

And the last option(Aabb) is two genes, heterozygous for one and homzygous for the other, though I suspect you knew that. Using three heterozygous genes(AaBbCc) gives 27 possible different genotypes, with probabliites ranging from a little over 1.5% to 6.25%

I was specifically referring to the last one, the third heterozygous one. Basically, even with three genes, if you arbitrarily say that if three of any of the six as dominant will produce a bisexual person, and more recessive equals more exclusively homosexual and more dominant is more exclusively heterosexual, it can possibly (and easily) account for the 'slider bar' of sexuality.

In my opinion. And this is only using three genes. Imagine how complex (but true to life) it could be if we're talking about six, seven, or more genes.