NationStates Jolt Archive

A friend of mine has a theory that all girls are inherently bisexual, and those who don't recognise themselves as bisexual just haven't realised it yet. Part of his reasoning is that girls can be sexually attracted to one another because the female form is beautiful and females can have a special and sensual bond.

I am personally attracted to both men and women, although I haven't ever labelled myself as "bisexual" per say. I don't really believe that all women are sexually attracted to both women and men.

What is your opinion? Are all girls bi?

I don't think anyone is bisexual. Girls who claim to be or act "bisexual" are merely responding to societal pressures on them to be two things at once, while they themselves would prefer to one be one.

I don't care. I think people are more interested in the labels than anything else. It's a side-effect of religion's obsession with sex and the most powerful thing that anyone can do to fight this trend is to stop slapping labels on themselves. Just boink and enjoy it. :)

What is your opinion? Are all girls bi?

We only wish they were :(

I don't think anyone is bisexual. Girls who claim to be or act "bisexual" are merely responding to societal pressures on them to be two things at once, while they themselves would prefer to one be one.

Care to explain further?


What is "acting" bisexual, exactly? If you mean stupid blondes kissing girls to get guy's attention, I can understand why you mean it's a response to societal pressure (or, in my opinion, pop culture).

I don't care. I think people are more interested in the labels than anything else. It's a side-effect of religion's obsession with sex and the most powerful thing that anyone can do to fight this trend is to stop slapping labels on themselves. Just boink and enjoy it. :)

Once again, The words of wisdom from LG, This^^^

Once again, The words of wisdom from LG, This^^^

I'd personally replace 'religion's' with 'humanity's' but thereabouts.

Part of his reasoning is that girls can be sexually attracted to one another because the female form is beautiful and females can have a special and sensual bond.

Part one of your friend's reasoning doesn't follow with the rest of the argument. Part two is like saying a human can do [activity goes here]. They may be physically able, but do they want to?


Other than that, I'd say that it comes down to genetic predisposition and environmental triggers of said predisposition. Ultimately, I'd say sexuality is out of the individual's control.

So, are all girls bi?

Only if all [subsection of humanity] are [insert gross generalization].

It's one of those beliefs that guys sometimes have, similar to the belief that there's no way you girls don't play with your breasts constantly, you have them, how could you not?

It's really a guy perspective thing, one could argue that all males are bi but, of course, we don't like to think that, why we suddenly apply it to females,

Anyway...

As a general rule, any statement that fits the pattern "all [extremely large subset of humanity] are [thing]" is completely inane. This one does not seem like an exception.

Personally, I suspect that sexuality is basically a spectrum (or, rather, a near-infinite number of spectra). If the "wanting to boink girls" scale goes from 0 to 100, some people will be at 0, some will be at 100, some will be at 50, some will be at 37, some will be at 82.376460127, and so on, and so on. As for me, I've never particularly wanted to do anything romantic or sexual with another woman, so I self-identify as a "0". It's theoretically possible that I'm actually a .001 or something, but it's not as if my precise place on this imaginary spectrum is something that deeply concerns me.

I am very confused as to how "girls are bi" even vaguely follows from "the female form is beautiful," though. I think flowers are pretty, but I have never felt any interest in getting it on with a begonia. Why on earth would one's reaction to any other pretty thing necessarily be different?

I think flowers are pretty, but I have never felt any interest in getting it on with a begonia.
Mmmm... hot flower pr0n... ;)

I used to bartend with a guy who claimed that all women were one bad date and three shots from girl on girl action.

Myself, I don't think you can justifiably state that all women are anything really. It's been my experience that chicks are contrary by nature, and they'll crawfish on you just when you think you've got them figured out.

I am very confused as to how "girls are bi" even vaguely follows from "the female form is beautiful," though. I think flowers are pretty, but I have never felt any interest in getting it on with a begonia. Why on earth would one's reaction to any other pretty thing necessarily be different?

I did over-simplify his point regarding the female form.

I do believe that women look at other women and admire their appearance much more than men look at or admire other men. Would you agree that this is because the female form is beautiful?

I do believe that women look at other women and admire their appearance much more than men look at or admire other men. Would you agree that this is because the female form is beautiful?
I'd say it more has to do with how socially acceptable it is. Admiring another guy gets your branded as gay.

Mmmm... hot flower pr0n... ;)

Liek dis?

http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF146-Bumble_Buzzin.jpg

Liek dis?
Not quite, unless Poliwanacraca is a bee. :p

I did over-simplify his point regarding the female form.

I do believe that women look at other women and admire their appearance much more than men look at or admire other men. Would you agree that this is because the female form is beautiful?

To a degree, I understand where you friend is coming from - while I, as a female, am fairly confident that I'm about as straight as they come, I do believe that women are beautiful, sexy, sensual creatures, and admire the female form a lot more than most of my male friends admire other men. This is, I've found, fairly common among women - at least the women I know. Regardless of what sexuality my female friends identify as, we're all pretty quick to look at a gorgeous women and say "wow, she's gorgeous/beautiful/sexy/has amazing curves/is basically edible" without any hesitation. I think Catherine Zeta-Jones is sex in human form, for example. Most of the men I know don't look at other men that way if they're "straight". Part of that may be societal pressures, but I also think that... women are just beautiful creatures in general.

However, I disagree with your friend on the "all women are bisexual" - I'd say EVERYONE falls on that 0-100 scale of sexuality, and regardless of gender, we all fall somewhere in between. I'm somewhere around 1.5 or something.

I do believe that women look at other women and admire their appearance much more than men look at or admire other men. Would you agree that this is because the female form is beautiful?

Partly, yeah. But chicks are alot more open with that sort of thing. Plus it's more acceptable for women to do that. If you're a guy, and you eyeball another guy too closely, you'll either start a fight or a relationship, depending.

What's all this nonsense about women and the female form being beautiful? Breasts are fatty tumours on a bloated, arse-heavy frame, diseased with disgustingly fatty/bony hips and ugly, cavernous genetalia.

The female form isn't beautiful, it's merely different.

I'd say it more has to do with how socially acceptable it is. Admiring another guy gets your branded as gay.

Indeed. Further, even putting in effort to make yourself look nice or stand out visually is comparatively discouraged among men, while being strongly encouraged among women. As an easy example, since I just saw an ad discussing the "best and worst Oscar dresses," just look at formal clothes for the two genders. Women's formalwear is elaborate, colorful, widely varied, often augmented with bright sparkly things, and quite explicitly designed to make the wearer noticed. Men's formalwear is dark, simple, and fairly uniform. Is it any wonder that more people turn to look at a red sequined evening gown than at a black tux that looks virtually identical to every other black tux, without even taking into account what gender of being is inside either outfit?

What's all this nonsense about women and the female form being beautiful? Breasts are fatty tumours on a bloated, arse-heavy frame, diseased with disgustingly fatty/bony hips and ugly, cavernous genetalia.

The female form isn't beautiful, it's merely different.

Hawt. You should write romance novels. :)

Not quite, unless Poliwanacraca is a bee. :p

Me, a bee? Why, that'zzzzzzzz juzzzzzzzt crazzzzzzzzzzzzzzy.

Hawt. You should write romance novels. :)

I do, but there's not much of a market for negro-cripple-elephantitis/Star Trek crossover erotica. :(

I do, but there's not much of a market for negro-cripple-elephantitis/Star Trek crossover erotica. :(

Pity. :(

Pity. :(

Yet another thread about those dreaded lesbians devolves into men weeping together.

Yet another thread about those dreaded lesbians devolves into men weeping together.

It's all part of their insidious plan.

Guess who first suggested to God that men's genitals should be in such a vulnerable spot? A lesbian. *nod*

It's all part of their insidious plan.

Guess who first suggested to God that men's genitals should be in such a vulnerable spot? A lesbian. *nod*

Testicles: a flawless argument against intelligent design.

Testicles: a flawless argument against intelligent design.

True. What competent designer would put an entertainment venue right next to a waste management facility?

True. What competent designer would put an entertainment venue right next to a waste management facility?

2 girls 1 cup: it's a matter of perception as to what's considered an entertainment centre.

2 girls 1 cup: it's a matter of perception as to what's considered an entertainment centre.

Puts God in an interesting new light doesn't it?

I do, but there's not much of a market for negro-cripple-elephantitis/Star Trek crossover erotica. :(

Write some fan fiction and see how popular it becomes. There may be a niche for you yet.

Write some fan fiction and see how popular it becomes. There may be a niche for you yet.

Hey, at least it'd make more sense than Spock's Brain.

A friend of mine has a theory that all girls are inherently bisexual, and those who don't recognise themselves as bisexual just haven't realised it yet.

That friend of yours should really learn to distinguish between reliable theories and wishes.

That friend of yours should really learn to distinguish between reliable theories and wishes.

This. :)

And looking more generally, the 'everyone is bisexual' theory is really only something a confused bi teenager would wish for to not feel so marginalised. Perhaps more people are bi than is generally known, but society is hardly welcoming for those who don't fit into a strict dichotomy.

I happen to think that humans are merely sexual beings. To ascribe titles like ""bi" or "homosexual" or "hetero" is, I don't know, doing a disservice to us. I know that these are sexuality titles that society ascribes to men and women. I just find these sad. I consider myself a sexual being. Both men and women are attractive, and I don't have a problem saying so.

I don't care. I think people are more interested in the labels than anything else. It's a side-effect of religion's obsession with sex and the most powerful thing that anyone can do to fight this trend is to stop slapping labels on themselves. Just boink and enjoy it. :)

Well said. :hail:

No all women are not bisexual. However the huge emphasis on the way women look doesn't just extend to men's perceptions of women but to women's perceptions of fellow women as well. Women check women out all the time. They check out what women are wearing (would I look good in that?), their makeup, how they hold themselves and generally to see if they're attractive.

A woman can easily spot and see the merits of an attractive woman. That doesn't necessarily mean that a woman would like to 'do' a woman that they see as attractive, but rather see it as a goal or as something to be emulated. Women are much more open than men and can openly discuss what makes said woman attractive. But from my experience if the woman being observed is far more beautiful than the woman who's checking her out, and this woman is of the jealous type she will tend to criticize the more beautiful woman and label her a 'skank' or something similar (although women who live up to their namesake do exist). Groups of jealous women can congregate and generally bitch about more beautiful women - and also less beautiful women to mke themselves feel better. Although other women can just view a beautiful woman as just that, and can openly admit that they can see why a man would be attracted to this woman and if they were a guy would probably be interested in them too.

Women have to know when it is pointless trying to compete with another woman. It stops them from getting hurt as often. Checking other women out helps - after all there is a certain element of competition involved in finding men (if they are so inclined).

By the way, despite my name I am in fact female...

True. What competent designer would put an entertainment venue right next to a waste management facility?

A bureaucrat.

A friend of mine has a theory that all girls are inherently bisexual, and those who don't recognise themselves as bisexual just haven't realised it yet. Part of his reasoning is that girls can be sexually attracted to one another because the female form is beautiful and females can have a special and sensual bond.

Then your friend is a bigot and an idiot.

I don't care. I think people are more interested in the labels than anything else. It's a side-effect of religion's obsession with sex and the most powerful thing that anyone can do to fight this trend is to stop slapping labels on themselves. Just boink and enjoy it. :)

What he said.

Then your friend is a bigot and an idiot.

Sorry Neo, why is he a bigot?

Sorry Neo, why is he a bigot?

bigoted - Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause

prejudice - An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.


That'll about do it I think.

I am very confused as to how "girls are bi" even vaguely follows from "the female form is beautiful," though. I think flowers are pretty, but I have never felt any interest in getting it on with a begonia. Why on earth would one's reaction to any other pretty thing necessarily be different?

Can I sig that?

A friend of mine has a theory that all girls are inherently bisexual, and those who don't recognise themselves as bisexual just haven't realised it yet. Part of his reasoning is that girls can be sexually attracted to one another because the female form is beautiful and females can have a special and sensual bond.

I am personally attracted to both men and women, although I haven't ever labelled myself as "bisexual" per say. I don't really believe that all women are sexually attracted to both women and men.

What is your opinion? Are all girls bi?

The only reason for sexual attracting is to mate. The animal incentive to mate is the pleasure they get from it. When one girl figures out she can do that with another girl, or a guy with another guy, use toys, masturbate, etc, they emulate real intercourse. Gay individuals may be 'gay' because of insecurities with the opposite sex (Rape victims, bad relationship experiences, very masculine/feminine household, etc)

The only reason for sexual attracting is to mate. The animal incentive to mate is the pleasure they get from it. When one girl figures out she can do that with another girl, or a guy with another guy, use toys, masturbate, etc, they emulate real intercourse. Gay individuals may be 'gay' because of insecurities with the opposite sex (Rape victims, bad relationship experiences, very masculine/feminine household, etc)

Do you have sources for that?

The only reason for sexual attracting is to mate. The animal incentive to mate is the pleasure they get from it. When one girl figures out she can do that with another girl, or a guy with another guy, use toys, masturbate, etc, they emulate real intercourse. Gay individuals may be 'gay' because of insecurities with the opposite sex (Rape victims, bad relationship experiences, very masculine/feminine household, etc)

I get it, you're fucking with us right? Right?

Oh please god tell me I'm right.

OK, I see who I'm dealing with here: Are you one of those people still convinced a bunch of arabs with box cutters hijacked airliners then destroyed 2 buildings by crashing into them, a 3rd building sponutaneously falling by a 'fire'? Then a third plane's remains scattered amongst a field which 'crashed' (Donald Rumsfeld has a freudian slip a missile hit it) and don't get me started on the pentagon.

I'm guessing...hm...anyone wanna go in on this with me? I'm betting 14.

OK, I see who I'm dealing with here:



I'm guessing...hm...anyone wanna go in on this with me? I'm betting 14.

yeah 14. +/- 2 years

A friend of mine has a theory that all girls are inherently bisexual, and those who don't recognise themselves as bisexual just haven't realised it yet. Part of his reasoning is that girls can be sexually attracted to one another because the female form is beautiful and females can have a special and sensual bond.

I am personally attracted to both men and women, although I haven't ever labelled myself as "bisexual" per say. I don't really believe that all women are sexually attracted to both women and men.

What is your opinion? Are all girls bi?
Your friend is engaging in a common error among young men: the mistake of assuming that his personal kinks are actual reality.

No, all girls are not bisexual. In fact, most of the girls who will TELL you they're bisexual are actually just straight girls who want to seem hot or cool to boys.

Your friend is also very carefully specifying that only GIRLS are this way, probably because he's very insecure about his own sexuality and doesn't want there to be any mistake about the fact that he is TOTALLY STRAIGHT, GUYS. LIKE REALLY.

Tell him to calm the fuck down and stop expecting real life to be like what he reads in Penthouse.

Bisexuals are whores.
Women are whores.
Therefore, women are bisexuals.

Simple.

Strange definition

Main Entry:
big·ot Listen to the pronunciation of bigot
Pronunciation:
\ˈbi-gət\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Straight men are just a stint in prison, same-sex boarding school, or the navy away from hot man lovin'.

Main Entry:
1prej·u·dice Listen to the pronunciation of 1prejudice
Pronunciation:
\ˈpre-jə-dəs\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment — more at judicial
Date:
13th century

1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights ; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Personally, I suspect that sexuality is basically a spectrum (or, rather, a near-infinite number of spectra). If the "wanting to boink girls" scale goes from 0 to 100, some people will be at 0, some will be at 100, some will be at 50, some will be at 37, some will be at 82.376460127, and so on, and so on. As for me, I've never particularly wanted to do anything romantic or sexual with another woman, so I self-identify as a "0". It's theoretically possible that I'm actually a .001 or something, but it's not as if my precise place on this imaginary spectrum is something that deeply concerns me.


^^This, except I self-identify as somewhere in the mid-80s.

I think Kinsey had the same idea, but he used smaller numbers.

bisexuals are just down right greedy :P

Straight men are just a stint in prison, same-sex boarding school, or the navy away from hot man lovin'.

Way more shots are required, probably to the point of passing out. If you really are straight that is. In all those case there have been incidents.

A friend of mine has a theory that all girls are inherently bisexual, and those who don't recognise themselves as bisexual just haven't realised it yet. Part of his reasoning is that girls can be sexually attracted to one another because the female form is beautiful and females can have a special and sensual bond.

I am personally attracted to both men and women, although I haven't ever labelled myself as "bisexual" per say. I don't really believe that all women are sexually attracted to both women and men.

What is your opinion? Are all girls bi?

Most girls are bi. Not all of them though. Very few people do not like making out with hot chicks.

There is definitely degrees of bisexuality. I am a very straight man. I do however think that male athletes and certain male actors are very good looking. I do not want to have sex with them but I can acknowledge that they look good. I do not know if that is bisexual at all but I am also not sure that it isnt because it is kinda gay to look at other men and acknowledge their physical beauty.

Part one of your friend's reasoning doesn't follow with the rest of the argument. Part two is like saying a human can do [activity goes here]. They may be physically able, but do they want to?


Other than that, I'd say that it comes down to genetic predisposition and environmental triggers of said predisposition. Ultimately, I'd say sexuality is out of the individual's control.

So, are all girls bi?

Only if all [subsection of humanity] are [insert gross generalization].

Actually I would have to request sources from you here. This a common arguement I've seen in a lot of forums and more organized debate centers that attempts to justify homosexuality as something beyond the individuals control. When I first hear this I looked it up, and I have yet to find any credible universities, institutes, or research facilities that have done a formal study on this. At best it is an unconfirmed hypothesis and therefore should not be used to make a point in this forum. This website should show you just how contested that point is - however you may note that the arguements against homosexuality being genetic are greater in number.

Also I like to take note that the section on the absence of intelligent design based on the location of genitals in relation to waste disposal on the human body typifies the arguements made by those in opposition of intelligent design. It does not help your case to make arguements such as that. Especially when the point of evidence most commonly used by Evolutionary scientists to support their arguements is a human being named "Lucy" that seems very likely to have been horribly diseased as opposed to an intermediary link ;)

The only reason for sexual attracting is to mate. The animal incentive to mate is the pleasure they get from it. When one girl figures out she can do that with another girl, or a guy with another guy, use toys, masturbate, etc, they emulate real intercourse. Gay individuals may be 'gay' because of insecurities with the opposite sex (Rape victims, bad relationship experiences, very masculine/feminine household, etc)
Gay individuals may also be gay because they like cock and happen to posess one themselves. Or because they like vaginas and have one themselves. And your theory does nothing to explain bisexuality.
Tell him to calm the fuck down and stop expecting real life to be like what he reads in Penthouse.

It...it....it isn't?!

:(

*locks self in closet, begins rocking back and forth in fetal position singing "It's A Small World" whilst eating hair*

It...it....it isn't?!

:(

*locks self in closet, begins rocking back and forth in fetal position singing "It's A Small World" whilst eating hair*

No, it isn't. At least, not right now. But we can MAKE it so.

Together.

In bed.

No, it isn't. At least, not right now. But we can MAKE it so.

Together.

In bed.


Fishing off the Starboard side now?

Fishing off the Starboard side now?

Port has gotten repetative *nods*

Port has gotten repetative *nods*

...Be there in 20.

Port has gotten repetative *nods*
Don't blame a nautical directional term for being bad in bed:p

Port has gotten repetative *nods*

...Be there in 20.

Both offline at the same time...coincidence?

I WANT VIDEOS!

Both offline at the same time...coincidence?

I WANT VIDEOS!

I'm surprised they didn't do it on a live webcam.

I don't think anyone is bisexual. Girls who claim to be or act "bisexual" are merely responding to societal pressures on them to be two things at once, while they themselves would prefer to one be one.

Wow. Now you can speak for gays, Supreme Court Justices AND women! You really do have some amazing psychic powers!

No, they aren't. Gosh, that was simple.

No, they aren't. Gosh, that was simple.

Ryadn just won.

I have a theory that a woman becomes bisexual the moment I show interest in her.

It's been remarkably accurate oer the last six years of random sampling.

I have a theory that a woman becomes bisexual the moment I show interest in her.

It's been remarkably accurate oer the last six years of random sampling.

Yes, it happened to me the moment we went out. Now, I only bang chicks.

Yes, it happened to me the moment we went out. Now, I only bang chicks.

SEE?! It's happening to women I don't even actually KNOW!

A friend of mine has a theory that all girls are inherently bisexual, and those who don't recognise themselves as bisexual just haven't realised it yet. Part of his reasoning is that girls can be sexually attracted to one another because the female form is beautiful and females can have a special and sensual bond.

I am personally attracted to both men and women, although I haven't ever labelled myself as "bisexual" per say. I don't really believe that all women are sexually attracted to both women and men.

What is your opinion? Are all girls bi?

I'm not sexually attracted to women or men, so the only way I could be considered bi would be if it were taken to mean "equally sexually attracted to men and women" and not "sexually attracted to both men and women." 0 is equal to 0, but I don't think that's the point of being bisexual...

Recognizing that the female form is beautiful is not sexual attraction. It's aesthetic attraction. You can recognize that someone is beautiful without wanting to have sex with them, just like you can recognize that an animal or a statue is beautiful without wanting to have sex with it. So aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction are different things.

I'm not sexually attracted to women or men, so the only way I could be considered bi would be if it were taken to mean "equally sexually attracted to men and women" and not "sexually attracted to both men and women." 0 is equal to 0, but I don't think that's the point of being bisexual...

Recognizing that the female form is beautiful is not sexual attraction. It's aesthetic attraction. You can recognize that someone is beautiful without wanting to have sex with them, just like you can recognize that an animal or a statue is beautiful without wanting to have sex with it. So aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction are different things.

Thread win!:fluffle:

I'm not sexually attracted to women or men, so the only way I could be considered bi would be if it were taken to mean "equally sexually attracted to men and women" and not "sexually attracted to both men and women." 0 is equal to 0, but I don't think that's the point of being bisexual...

Recognizing that the female form is beautiful is not sexual attraction. It's aesthetic attraction. You can recognize that someone is beautiful without wanting to have sex with them, just like you can recognize that an animal or a statue is beautiful without wanting to have sex with it. So aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction are different things.

I am afraid of what you might be sexually attracted to if not women or men.

I am so glad that my recognition of beautiful men does not make me gay. The best looking men are The Rock, Yul Brynner (deceased), Clint Eastwood, and Toshiro Mifune.

I am afraid of what you might be sexually attracted to if not women or men.

Nothing. I don't see what's so scary about not being sexually attracted to anything.

To answer the original question, no, not all women are bisexual. Assuming sexuality is a continuum, as Kinsey suggested (and he's most likely correct), the distribution of sexual preferences in women may be skewed towards the center, at least when compared to that of men. I'm probably badly remembering a study though, so take this with a grain of salt.

I'm surprised they didn't do it on a live webcam.
Shut up, I'm busy watching.

Nothing. I don't see what's so scary about not being sexually attracted to anything.

I guess that makes me fearless. For I am afraid of nothing, apparently.:p Although dont confuse me with the guy who looks just like me who wets himself at the thought of great white sharks or swarms of cockroaches.

I am afraid of what you might be sexually attracted to if not women or men.

I am so glad that my recognition of beautiful men does not make me gay. The best looking men are The Rock, Yul Brynner (deceased), Clint Eastwood, and Toshiro Mifune.

I haven't experienced sexual attraction at all. So no one, or nothing.

I think Michael Crawford is beautiful, more so because of the grace with which he moves and the beauty of his voice than how he actually looks. There are a lot of women I can tell are beautiful (none that really stick in my mind, but I can usually recognize it). But I'm still not sexually attracted to any of them.

Also, someone at AVEN (forum for asexuals) came up with a way to describe attraction (not just sexual) more precisely using radar charts. I think it's interesting so I'll put there descriptions of the different kinds of attraction.

Fantasy - thinking of people in a sexual way, whether or not you have any desire whatsoever to act on those thoughts.
Primary Sexual Attraction: Sexual attraction to someone based on information you get instantly, like their looks or smell.
Secondary Sexual Attraction: Sexual attraction to someone based on the relationship you have with them.
Primary Sexual Desire: Wanting to do something sexual because it'll feel good to you (physically or emotionally).
Secondary Sexual Desire: Wanting to do something sexual because of your partner's pleasure, or for some other motivation such as conceiving a child.
Primary Romantic - wanting to be in a romantic relationship with someone in particular, "falling in love".
Secondary Romantic - wanting to be in a romantic relationship in general, being open to options should someone pursue you romantically.
Aesthetic - wanting to feast your eyes on someone because they're pretty.
Platonic - wanting to communicate, share ideas, be friends. You don't have to experience platonic attraction to enjoy having friends; in this context it measures a directed desire to get to know a particular person.
Physical - wanting to touch, hug, cuddle and so on.


http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g190/hallucigenia_sparsa/radarscale2.gif (http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?showtopic=29618&hl=no%20more%20cubes&st=0)


And here's mine, where the green line refers to basically being able to recognize that things like cats, artwork, sunsets, etc. are beautiful, and also that I sometimes want to cuddle with my cats.
http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd323/invaderoperaghost/radialchart.jpg

It seems like a really interesting idea to me. Mine is an example of what an aromantic asexual's might look like, the thread at AVEN showed a lot of differences even among asexuals (some feel romantic attraction, or secondary sexual desire, or varying amounts of different types of attraction). I think it'd be interesting to see what more people in general thought of the model and how accurately it described them.

What is your opinion? Are all girls bi?

Mrs. C votes HELL NO!

I think Michael Crawford is beautiful

ewww

Also, someone at AVEN (forum for asexuals) came up with a way to describe attraction (not just sexual) more precisely using radar charts. I think it's interesting so I'll put there descriptions of the different kinds of attraction.

Asexuals are experts on attraction now :confused:

A friend of mine has a theory that all girls are inherently bisexual, and those who don't recognise themselves as bisexual just haven't realised it yet. Part of his reasoning is that girls can be sexually attracted to one another because the female form is beautiful and females can have a special and sensual bond.

I am personally attracted to both men and women, although I haven't ever labelled myself as "bisexual" per say. I don't really believe that all women are sexually attracted to both women and men.

What is your opinion? Are all girls bi?

My dog has a beautiful form and I am not attracted to him. "[S]pecial and sensual bond" sounds like sexism to me--another theory that women are "different" and "special", and that men are unappreciative brutes.

Can I sig that?

Go for it. :p

Port has gotten repetative *nods*

.......

:mad:

I haven't experienced sexual attraction at all. So no one, or nothing.

I think Michael Crawford is beautiful, more so because of the grace with which he moves and the beauty of his voice than how he actually looks. There are a lot of women I can tell are beautiful (none that really stick in my mind, but I can usually recognize it). But I'm still not sexually attracted to any of them.

Also, someone at AVEN (forum for asexuals) came up with a way to describe attraction (not just sexual) more precisely using radar charts. I think it's interesting so I'll put there descriptions of the different kinds of attraction.


http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g190/hallucigenia_sparsa/radarscale2.gif (http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?showtopic=29618&hl=no%20more%20cubes&st=0)


And here's mine, where the green line refers to basically being able to recognize that things like cats, artwork, sunsets, etc. are beautiful, and also that I sometimes want to cuddle with my cats.
http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd323/invaderoperaghost/radialchart.jpg

It seems like a really interesting idea to me. Mine is an example of what an aromantic asexual's might look like, the thread at AVEN showed a lot of differences even among asexuals (some feel romantic attraction, or secondary sexual desire, or varying amounts of different types of attraction). I think it'd be interesting to see what more people in general thought of the model and how accurately it described them.

So is it correct that you are attracted to objects or am I reading the chart wrong? According to feminazis I am attracted to objects because I am a straight man and therefore objectify women.

ewww



Asexuals are experts on attraction now :confused:

Ewww?

A lot of them can feel... well, pretty much everything on that chart except for sexual. It's just something that comes up there because some of them need more precise ways to describe what they do and don't feel. And not everyone who goes to AVEN is asexual anyway.

And not everyone who goes to AVEN is asexual anyway.

I'd say "not most" but that's just my bias poking through.

So is it correct that you are attracted to objects or am I reading the chart wrong? According to feminazis I am attracted to objects because I am a straight man and therefore objectify women.

You're reading it wrong. The green line just means that I like to cuddle with my cats and I think my cats, as well as other things like art, things in nature, etc., are beautiful, not that I'm attracted to them in any way more than the aesthetic attraction of recognizing that they're beautiful. It doesn't go into the sexual or romantic parts of the chart.

I'd say "not most" but that's just my bias poking through.

Neo A, don't hound Chandy like that. Whatever her preferences, they're her business.

I'd say "not most" but that's just my bias poking through.

Hmm?

I don't think there are necessarily any more women attracted to members of both sexes than men.

I do think that it is more socially accepted (in some cases, even sought after) and women are therefore more likely to be aware of and open about it.

Only if all [subsection of humanity] are [insert gross generalization].

So... in other words... yes?

:tongue:

A lot of them can feel... well, pretty much everything on that chart except for sexual. It's just something that comes up there because some of them need more precise ways to describe what they do and don't feel. And not everyone who goes to AVEN is asexual anyway.

sex is not a block on a radar screen and not even I can define it

hell have you ever laid on tarp naked? feels good man

You're reading it wrong. The green line just means that I like to cuddle with my cats and I think my cats, as well as other things like art, things in nature, etc., are beautiful, not that I'm attracted to them in any way more than the aesthetic attraction of recognizing that they're beautiful. It doesn't go into the sexual or romantic parts of the chart.

Please do not take this the wrong way but is being asexual something that can be cured by taking horomones? Did you ever talk to a doctor about this?

Please do not take this the wrong way but is being asexual something that can be cured by taking horomones? Did you ever talk to a doctor about this?

I haven't personally, but other asexuals have said that they have and have tried it and it didn't work. Nothing is really broken to fix...and even if there was a way to change it, I wouldn't want to change.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but do you think maybe if you took hormones you could become sexually attracted to men and not just aesthetically attracted? Have you ever talked to your doctor about that? :tongue:

See, I don't think what you asked me is any different than me asking you that question. I don't mean any offense, but if you are offended think about that. It's... kind of offensive for it to be suggested that your orientation and the way you feel is something that should be fixed or discussed with a doctor. Asexuality isn't some kind of disease.

I really didn't mean for this to become sidetracked with discussion of asexuality...

I haven't personally, but other asexuals have said that they have and have tried it and it didn't work. Nothing is really broken to fix...and even if there was a way to change it, I wouldn't want to change.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but do you think maybe if you took hormones you could become sexually attracted to men and not just aesthetically attracted? Have you ever talked to your doctor about that? :tongue:

See, I don't think what you asked me is any different than me asking you that question. I don't mean any offense, but if you are offended think about that. It's... kind of offensive for it to be suggested that your orientation and the way you feel is something that should be fixed or discussed with a doctor. Asexuality isn't some kind of disease.

I really didn't mean for this to become sidetracked with discussion of asexuality...

I hope you were not offended. That is why I wrote that bit about please not taking it the wrong way.

So what is it that makes the girls go bi? Do you think it is mainly the perfume? The boobs? The hair? I bet its the boobs.

Please do not take this the wrong way but is being asexual something that can be cured by taking horomones? Did you ever talk to a doctor about this?

Asexuality does not work that way...we actually don't know HOW it works or what causes it, anymore than we know what causes bisexuality or homosexuality.

But it is a legitimate sexuality. It's not like Chandy here just has a dormant sex drive. Sexuality influences far more than just the sex aspect: it influences every aspect of your relationship with those to whom you could be attracted to.

Asexuality does not work that way...we actually don't know HOW it works or what causes it, anymore than we know what causes bisexuality or homosexuality.

But it is a legitimate sexuality. It's not like Chandy here just has a dormant sex drive. Sexuality influences far more than just the sex aspect: it influences every aspect of your relationship with those to whom you could be attracted to.

Asexual? Are we talking about bacteria here?

Asexual? Are we talking about bacteria here?

No, we are speaking about asexuality.

In humans, asexuality is a sexual orientation in which the human feels no attraction to any sex, either opposite or the same, and has no desire for sexual activity. As Chandy said, some might feel romantic desire, but they will not feel sexual desire. Most don't even feel romantic desire.

No, we are speaking about asexuality.

In humans, asexuality is a sexual orientation in which the human feels no attraction to any sex, either opposite or the same, and has no desire for sexual activity. As Chandy said, some might feel romantic desire, but they will not feel sexual desire. Most don't even feel romantic desire.

It is controversial though. We don't know if it's a lack of sexual desire, or a heavily repressed sexual desire IIRC.

It is controversial though. We don't know if it's a lack of sexual desire, or a heavily repressed sexual desire IIRC.

I think it seems pretty clear that it is a lack of sexual desire. The issue isn't one of not knowing, it's one of perspective interfering in our ability to understand.

Most people with perfectly normal sex drives find it very difficult to believe that someone could have no sex drive, so the idea tends to be rejected, even by those who know better than to reject a concept out of hand just because it doesn't sound right to them.

Further, it is a little insulting to tell people like Chandy that their sexual orientation is not real, that it's just a problem that can be fixed. But it's not. There's nothing wrong with it.

I think it seems pretty clear that it is a lack of sexual desire. The issue isn't one of not knowing, it's one of perspective interfering in our ability to understand.

Most people with perfectly normal sex drives find it very difficult to believe that someone could have no sex drive, so the idea tends to be rejected, even by those who know better than to reject a concept out of hand just because it doesn't sound right to them.

Further, it is a little insulting to tell people like Chandy that their sexual orientation is not real, that it's just a problem that can be fixed. But it's not. There's nothing wrong with it.

I don't reject it, I accept that it's possible, but I feel that many people who claim to be asexual merely have a repressed sexual drive, but not all of them.

I don't reject it, I accept that it's possible, but I feel that many people who claim to be asexual merely have a repressed sexual drive, but not all of them.

Do you have some evidence of this? I don't doubt there are a FEW who simply have repressed sex drives, but I'm also willing to bet that the vast majority of those who claim to be asexual are asexual, just as the vast majority who claim to be bisexual/homosexual/heterosexual are bisexual/homosexual/heterosexual.

Do you have some evidence of this?

Only anecdotal.

Further, it is a little insulting to tell people like Chandy that their sexual orientation is not real, that it's just a problem that can be fixed. But it's not. There's nothing wrong with it.

Biologically, there's a lot wrong with it. Our purpose is to reproduce and continue the species, so people with no sexual desire are directly against our only reason for living.

Do you have some evidence of this? I don't doubt there are a FEW who simply have repressed sex drives, but I'm also willing to bet that the vast majority of those who claim to be asexual are asexual, just as the vast majority who claim to be bisexual/homosexual/heterosexual are bisexual/homosexual/heterosexual.

NSGers really like to say that we are all repressed sexually. According to some of them I am a repressed homosexual because I say that I am straight.

Biologically, there's a lot wrong with it. Our purpose is to reproduce and continue the species, so people with no sexual desire are directly against our only reason for living.

We're sapient beings. We have the intelligence and the ability to tell our base instincts to go stuff themselves.

And if this was true, why should any asexuals exist at all? (Interestingly, many asexuals actually desire children even though they don't desire sexual activity. Being asexual does not preclude wanting to be a parent...though that might be the influence of society more than anything else.)

We're sapient beings. We have the intelligence and the ability to tell our base instincts to go stuff themselves.

I think you'd be surprised how much of our so-called free will is actually guidance by our base instincts. We just don't realize it, because its all very sub-subconscious.

Biologically, there's a lot wrong with it. Our purpose is to reproduce and continue the species, so people with no sexual desire are directly against our only reason for living.

Although I would not say it like that, private parts were made for a purpose and when the parts are not being used it makes you wonder if there is some sort of a health problem. It is like if all of a sudden I could not move my legs that is a good sign that there is a problem.

We're sapient beings. We have the intelligence and the ability to tell our base instincts to go stuff themselves.


Instincts are at the biological level. We cannot will them away, we can control them, ignore them, repress them and make sure they don't influence us any more, but they still remain.

We're sapient beings. We have the intelligence and the ability to tell our base instincts to go stuff themselves.

And if this was true, why should any asexuals exist at all? (Interestingly, many asexuals actually desire children even though they don't desire sexual activity. Being asexual does not preclude wanting to be a parent...though that might be the influence of society more than anything else.)

Hey, I know a girl like that! She is a friend of mine. I never realized that she was aesexual I just thought well actually I am not sure what I thought.

I think you'd be surprised how much of our so-called free will is actually guidance by our base instincts. We just don't realize it, because its all very sub-subconscious.

Actually, I'm not surprised at all. I'm fully aware at how much we transform basic instincts into serious ideologies, such as transforming our tribalistic nature(that is, our tendency to organize into small groups based upon our own specific relatives and work to promote their survival over everyone else) into supreme xenophobia and the concepts of racism.

It's why I become so annoyed that half the time we don't even try to overcome these instincts, but wholeheartedly embrace them as though they were all hunky dory lovely.

It's why I become so annoyed that half the time we don't even try to overcome these instincts, but wholeheartedly embrace them as though they were all hunky dory lovely.

These instincts developed through natural selection because they were the ones that helped the human race survive into and past infancy. Why drop them now?

These instincts developed through natural selection because they were the ones that helped the human race survive into and past infancy. Why drop them now?

Because survival instincts are nice and fine, but after a certain point, most of them interfere and actually hold back our development. Case in point, racism and xenophobia in general are stigmas we're better off without.

We're past needing the inefficient process of evolution. (Especially since, mistaken beliefs to the contrary, the process is only useful for adapting to your current environment in the best way possible. Contrary to common belief, this could potentially lead to use LOSING our intelligence, because if it gets to the point to where our brains consume too many resources and its not resource-efficient to keep them, we'll evolve them away.)

We're past needing the inefficient process of evolution.

You were making some sense up to here, but there are so many things wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin.

You were making some sense up to here, but there are so many things wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin.

What do you mean?

You were making some sense up to here, but there are so many things wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin.

Survival of the fittest used to treat illnesses. Now we use medicine.

Case in point, racism and xenophobia in general are stigmas we're better off without.
You only say that because you've been socially conditioned to do so.

We're past needing the inefficient process of evolution.
I assume you're not a creationist, so explain to me how the process by which we developed is inefficient? It took a long time? Well duh, have you seen how complex we are as organisms? I mean, goddamn! Besides, you don't "need" evolution. Evolution isn't something you can turn on and off. It exists and always will exist - it is a law of nature, so we will continue to be ruled by its non-directional whims until we die off as a species.

And even then, that will be because of evolution.

Survival of the fittest used to treat illnesses. Now we use medicine.

Survival of the fittest isn't "used" to do anything. Medicine is part of survival of the fittest. You can't "escape" evolution.

My point is, we can improve ourselves without having to wait for mutations or other aspects of evolution to kick in. They not only take too long, but they could potentially screw us over if we get into a situation where our intelligence is less useful. That might sound ridiculous if you look at it from the perspective of civilization continuing to exist, but if something happens and civilization ceases to exist, there is plenty of potential for us to find ourselves in a situation where our intelligence is less useful because there's not enough food to feed our large brains. Cue evolution in action, and we evolve the size down enough so that we can feed ourselves and survive.

Admittedly that's a process that takes thousands and thousands of years. Hence why it is inefficient, because it just takes too long.

They not only take too long, but they could potentially screw us over if we get into a situation where our intelligence is less useful.
You misunderstand what evolution is and how it works. Through evolution, processes will take just as long as they need to, and nothing will ever be "less useful" because of evolution. In fact, through evolution, everything will be as useful as it needs to be, not more and not less.

I don't know if you've ever read Candide, but this could be called a Panglossian argument.

You were making some sense up to here, but there are so many things wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin.

Here, let me try:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/AwXomeMan/morbo.jpg

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Here, let me try:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/AwXomeMan/morbo.jpg

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Did I misphrase something? :$

Evolution is just a process that allows a lifeform to adapt to its environment in the best way possible. Period. It's not anything other than that.

Evolution is just a process that allows a lifeform to adapt to its environment in the best way possible.

It doesn't allow "a lifeform" to do anything. It works on a special level.

What do you mean?

Heh, I mean it when I say I don't know where to begin. Let me try to just list things randomly:

- Evolution is not something we get to opt out of. It's just...not.
- I don't really understand who the "we" is who once "needed" but now do not "need" evolution.
- Evolution is remarkably efficient.
- Why would lowering our average intelligence as a species be "bad" if we no longer needed that intelligence to survive? I understand that obviously we both think intelligence is a good thing, but rationally speaking, why does it actually matter if 50,000 years from now our descendants aren't as smart as we are?
- Since, as you note, evolution drives a given organism to fit most effectively and efficiently within its environment, how exactly would magically ridding ourselves of it improve anything?
- To address KK: the intelligence that led us to develop tools (including, for example, scalpels and MRIs and syringes) isn't a product of evolution?
- The idea that Homo sapiens alone is somehow special and immune to natural processes is, to me, utterly ridiculous. Ask yourself, momentarily, how many people you've met who think morbid obesity, hacking coughs, or frequent vomiting is sexy, and compare that to the number of people who think, say, well-shaped, firm muscles are sexy. Do you really just think it's a magical coincidence that humans typically find signs of good health "hot" and signs of poor health unattractive? Do you really think, furthermore, that that correspondence is totally useless and we'd do better as a species if we all somehow decided that nothing was sexier than someone dying of AIDS?

Did I misphrase something? :$

Yes, mainly, this:

Evolution is just a process that allows a lifeform to adapt to its environment in the best way possible.

Evolution doesn't "allow" anything. "Evolution" is just a short hand for saying three things:

1) mutations occur
2) those mutations can be harmful, beneficial, or neutral
3) beneficial mutations increase surviveability of those with the mutation, thus making it more likely to pass on that mutation to offspring

That's it. All those 3 things are facts of our biology. They just are. Evolution isn't a goal. It isn't something we "need" or "want" or "desire". As long as our genetics is such that mutations can occur, they will occur. Now, our intelligence allows us to create enviornments in which we minimize selective pressures, that's true, but that doesn't mean we "stop evolution"

Heh, I mean it when I say I don't know where to begin. Let me try to just list things randomly:

- Evolution is not something we get to opt out of. It's just...not.
- I don't really understand who the "we" is who once "needed" but now do not "need" evolution.
- Evolution is remarkably efficient.
- Why would lowering our average intelligence as a species be "bad" if we no longer needed that intelligence to survive? I understand that obviously we both think intelligence is a good thing, but rationally speaking, why does it actually matter if 50,000 years from now our descendants aren't as smart as we are?
- Since, as you note, evolution drives a given organism to fit most effectively and efficiently within its environment, how exactly would magically ridding ourselves of it improve anything?
- To address KK: the intelligence that led us to develop tools (including, for example, scalpels and MRIs and syringes) isn't a product of evolution?
- The idea that Homo sapiens alone is somehow special and immune to natural processes is, to me, utterly ridiculous. Ask yourself, momentarily, how many people you've met who think morbid obesity, hacking coughs, or frequent vomiting is sexy, and compare that to the number of people who think, say, well-shaped, firm muscles are sexy. Do you really just think it's a magical coincidence that humans typically find signs of good health "hot" and signs of poor health unattractive? Do you really think, furthermore, that that correspondence is totally useless and we'd do better as a species if we all somehow decided that nothing was sexier than someone dying of AIDS?
...

I honestly don't understand where you got the impression I said that homo sapiens is somehow not subject to evolution. I never said anything of the sort, and actually said kind of the opposite.

But any, to answer the only question there that matters: I think the loss of intelligence would be bad because, you know, it'd be the loss of intelligence. We're capable of moving beyond that sort of thing and directing everything. If you want to call it directing the process of evolution, then fine, but that's just semantics.

Here, let me try:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/AwXomeMan/morbo.jpg

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

I actually had that as my first point in my little bullet list, but deleted it before posting. It was the first answer that came to mind, hehe. :p

Yes, mainly, this:



Evolution doesn't "allow" anything. "Evolution" is just a short hand for saying three things:

1) mutations occur
2) those mutations can be harmful, beneficial, or neutral
3) beneficial mutations increase surviveability of those with the mutation, thus making it more likely to pass on that mutation to offspring

That's it. All those 3 things are facts of our biology. They just are. Evolution isn't a goal. It isn't something we "need" or "want" or "desire". As long as our genetics is such that mutations can occur, they will occur. Now, our intelligence allows us to create enviornments in which we minimize selective pressures, that's true, but that doesn't mean we "stop evolution"

That's what I said. Or at least that's what I meant. My semantics makes it sound more confusing.

...

I honestly don't understand where you got the impression I said that homo sapiens is somehow not subject to evolution. I never said anything of the sort, and actually said kind of the opposite.

"We don't need evolution" necessarily implies that not "having" evolution is somehow an option.

But any, to answer the only question there that matters: I think the loss of intelligence would be bad because, you know, it'd be the loss of intelligence.

You do see how that's not an answer, right?

We're capable of moving beyond that sort of thing and directing everything.

No, we're not. Like I already said. The only way to "stop evolving" is to stop living at all. If you want to opt out of evolution, you'll pretty much have to destroy the Earth entirely. :p

If you want to call it directing the process of evolution, then fine, but that's just semantics.

We can't even really do that, although that's closer to true.

By Jove I think I have it! Womens like the womens because they like to read into what a person is feeling. Women think that if they see a hard wiener they know that the man is attracted to them. However, since the women do not have hard wieners they get to figure it out by more complicated body language and facial expressions and they all love that shit. Obviously women crave the dick too but it is too simple for 'em so they also need the women to satisfy that extra need for complexity.

Thus, it isnt the boobies or the perfume that draws 'em in but it is the increased complexity. Heck, the stuff that guys complain about women is what draws 'em in like a big fat nightcrawler wriggling in front of a hungry largemouth.

That's what I said. Or at least that's what I meant. My semantics makes it sound more confusing.

the problem is with statements like "needing" evolution. You can't "need" something that is, at best, a concept.

Basically, it's this. Evolution isn't a "thing" that "happens". As such it can’t be stopped, or slowed, or sped up, or even directed. It is a concept used to describe the cumulative effect of certain truisms. Nothing more or less. What we can do is reduce the effect of some of those truisms, however. For example, I’m quite sure the proportion of our population that is blind as a result of birth defect is significantly higher than it was 20,000 years ago. This is because being blind is no longer a major impediment to survival, as it would have been back then. We haven’t “slowed evolution” since it is not something that can be slowed, since it can’t be measured. As such, any way to define it as “slowed” is impossible.

What we have done is reduce the effects of selective pressures.

Basically, it's this. Evolution isn't a "thing" that "happens". As such it can’t be stopped, or slowed, or sped up, or even directed. It is a concept used to describe the cumulative effect of certain truisms. Nothing more or less. What we can do is reduce the effect of some of those truisms, however. For example, I’m quite sure the proportion of our population that is blind as a result of birth defect is significantly higher than it was 20,000 years ago. This is because being blind is no longer a major impediment to survival, as it would have been back then. We haven’t “slowed evolution” since it is not something that can be slowed, since it can’t be measured. As such, any way to define it as “slowed” is impossible.

What we have done is reduce the effects of selective pressures.

Ah, I see. So, I suppose the way I want to phrase this instead is that we minimize the selective pressures we don't need, and direct the ones we do need through technology?

Sorority girls are all bi.

Provided "bi" means "Ill make out with another girl just so all the guys at this party give me attention".

Seeing as this thread has evolved somewhat, let's try thinking about this: for what evolutionary reason does bisexuality exist? Not that it need a reason to exist as such, but what advantages could it have brought to an individual and a group?

I don't think anyone is bisexual. Girls who claim to be or act "bisexual" are merely responding to societal pressures on them to be two things at once, while they themselves would prefer to one be one.

While I am agree that I dont think everyone is bisexual ... and while some girls sure do cave to social pressure to act bisexual I dont think that necessarily makes the case that ALL girls that are bisexual are only caving to social pressures

Seeing as this thread has evolved somewhat, let's try thinking about this: for what evolutionary reason does bisexuality exist? Not that it need a reason to exist as such, but what advantages could it have brought to an individual and a group?

I don't think it exists for an evolutionary reason. I think it is a social construction.

Then again, I think everything is a social construction, so...

Biologically, there's a lot wrong with it. Our purpose is to reproduce and continue the species, so people with no sexual desire are directly against our only reason for living.

Continuation of the species requires offspring to survive until adulthood and for most or many of them to reproduce themselves. It does not require every single human being to reproduce. In fact, it could be advantageous to have non-reproducing members, as those members would then be more available to help with the offspring of others.

Seeing as this thread has evolved somewhat, let's try thinking about this: for what evolutionary reason does bisexuality exist? Not that it need a reason to exist as such, but what advantages could it have brought to an individual and a group?

Formation of stronger social bonds could increase survival of an entire group - and that is part of what sex does.

Women are bi because few people do not want to make out with foxy ladies.

I hope you were not offended. That is why I wrote that bit about please not taking it the wrong way.

I wasn't really offended. It's just a very common response that gets annoying after you've heard it so many times.

No, we are speaking about asexuality.

In humans, asexuality is a sexual orientation in which the human feels no attraction to any sex, either opposite or the same, and has no desire for sexual activity. As Chandy said, some might feel romantic desire, but they will not feel sexual desire. Most don't even feel romantic desire.

You're right, except it's hard to tell how many asexuals feel or don't feel romantic desire. The only sample for that that we would really have would be a poll on AVEN where about 36% labeled themselves as heteroromantic, 8% as homoromantic, 15% as bi-romantic, and 20% as aromantic (with a few other options), but I don't know how representative AVEN's members are of all asexuals. But based on that it seems that more do feel romantic attraction than don't, although a sizable amount don't.

I think it seems pretty clear that it is a lack of sexual desire. The issue isn't one of not knowing, it's one of perspective interfering in our ability to understand.

Most people with perfectly normal sex drives find it very difficult to believe that someone could have no sex drive, so the idea tends to be rejected, even by those who know better than to reject a concept out of hand just because it doesn't sound right to them.

Further, it is a little insulting to tell people like Chandy that their sexual orientation is not real, that it's just a problem that can be fixed. But it's not. There's nothing wrong with it.

Thanks, you got it here. :D

I don't reject it, I accept that it's possible, but I feel that many people who claim to be asexual merely have a repressed sexual drive, but not all of them.

If we're happy as we are, why does it really matter to you how we came to be that way? How do you know the difference? I don't think we are just "repressed", I'm pretty sure I'm not, and I don't think there's really any evidence that that's the case.

But do you really want to try to deny us our identification just because you happen to think we're "repressed" and somehow not legitimately feeling the way we feel?

When I found AVEN it was a huge relief because I finally had a place where I could be myself and not have to lie anymore. I always understood from when I was very little that marriage, weddings, relationships and such were not for me, they were for other people. I knew I was going to be alone, and that didn't make me sad or lonely, it made me happy and relieved. But try to explain that to anyone, and they'll think that you're depressed and they won't understand that that realization is what gives you peace. It's just dealing with a society that is constantly at odds with what makes you happy that makes you sad.

Although I would not say it like that, private parts were made for a purpose and when the parts are not being used it makes you wonder if there is some sort of a health problem. It is like if all of a sudden I could not move my legs that is a good sign that there is a problem.

It'd be more like not wanting to use your legs than not being able to. Some asexuals have had sex, so the parts can be used...

Actually I would have to request sources from you here. This a common arguement I've seen in a lot of forums and more organized debate centers that attempts to justify homosexuality as something beyond the individuals control. When I first hear this I looked it up, and I have yet to find any credible universities, institutes, or research facilities that have done a formal study on this. At best it is an unconfirmed hypothesis and therefore should not be used to make a point in this forum. This website should show you just how contested that point is - however you may note that the arguements against homosexuality being genetic are greater in number.

Also I like to take note that the section on the absence of intelligent design based on the location of genitals in relation to waste disposal on the human body typifies the arguements made by those in opposition of intelligent design. It does not help your case to make arguements such as that. Especially when the point of evidence most commonly used by Evolutionary scientists to support their arguements is a human being named "Lucy" that seems very likely to have been horribly diseased as opposed to an intermediary link ;)

Once I was done deciphering this, I presume you're asking for some sort of citation for the fact that homosexuality is not a conscious choice? In which case, how about the American Psychological Association, in their questions answered article about sexual orientation (http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses)? Specifically, note the following statement: "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

Furthermore, you are hardly in a position to claim that unconfirmed hypotheses have no place on this forum, given some of the comments in your second paragraph.

ewww



Asexuals are experts on attraction now :confused:

Difference between sexual and romantic attraction, etc, etc. Furthermore, people who fit into the more minor categories - asexuality, homosexuality, etc, - tend to have considered themselves and their personality a lot more in deciding this. As it currently stands, the default assumption is one of heterosexuality, so someone who identifies as asexual will only do so after thinking about it a lot (and probably going through a fairly nasty phase of "why aren't I like everybody else, is there something wrong with me?").

Basically, making the choice to identify as asexual will require a person to analyse their own feelings in much more detail than just going with the 'default' will. So asexuals will probably have thought more carefully and in more detail about the various categories and types of attraction, and worked out how these apply to them, before concluding they are asexual. Hence, while not experts on some of the practical aspects, they are likely to know more about the various theoretical forms of attraction.

Formation of stronger social bonds could increase survival of an entire group - and that is part of what sex does.

Do you think this applies to monogamous couples, or relieving of sexual urges regardless of situation (hunter/gatherer separation?), or both? I suppose it depends on the social structure, whether one is preferential.

And the next question is: why, if it is beneficial, aren't more people bisexual today? or is this a case of it being societally repressed for such a long period.

If we're happy as we are, why does it really matter to you how we came to be that way?

Personally, I just find these things fascinating, so I find it interesting to delve into what biological factors cause different sexual orientations.

But that's just me, and I don't make assumptions about people being repressed or whatever. If you're happy as you are, as far as I'm concerned, that means there's nothing wrong with you. =)


Do you think this applies to monogamous couples, or relieving of sexual urges regardless of situation (hunter/gatherer separation?), or both? I suppose it depends on the social structure, whether one is preferential.

Hmmmm, I was just throwing that out there as a possibility.

Monogamy also has possible advantages and disadvantages. And different societies certainly "select" for different things (in a sense).

And the next question is: why, if it is beneficial, aren't more people bisexual today? or is this a case of it being societally repressed for such a long period.

It could be related to societal repression. There may be people who are bisexual, but who write some of their attractions off as something else because they've been told that they shouldn't have such attractions.

And, of course, there may be nothing particularly advantageous about bisexuality such that it would actually be selected for. It very well may be simply that it isn't disadvantageous enough to be selected against.

Personally, I just find these things fascinating, so I find it interesting to delve into what biological factors cause different sexual orientations.

But that's just me, and I don't make assumptions about people being repressed or whatever. If you're happy as you are, as far as I'm concerned, that means there's nothing wrong with you. =)


I think these things are fascinating, too, as long as no one is trying to use them to say that one is inherently "wrong".

:D

Further, it is a little insulting to tell people like Chandy that their sexual orientation is not real, that it's just a problem that can be fixed. But it's not. There's nothing wrong with it.

Here is the crux of the issue that brings us back to being on topic. Denial of asexuality is no different than denial of hetero/homo/bisexuality.

Claiming all girls/boys/people must be bisexual denies their actual sexuality...it claims that the individual denies their true feelings, when it is actually the observer who is in denial. I know that on this forum, Fass is notorious for claiming "bisexuality does not exist". His reasoning is not that he doesn't actually believe that one can be attracted to both sexes, but is instead a reaction to the tendancy for bisexuals to claim that, because they are bisexual, everyone must me.

His reasoning is not that he doesn't actually believe that one can be attracted to both sexes, but is instead a reaction to the tendancy for bisexuals to claim that, because they are bisexual, everyone must me.

You are the only other person I have seen to understand that.

Further, it is a little insulting to tell people like Chandy that their sexual orientation is not real, that it's just a problem that can be fixed. But it's not. There's nothing wrong with it.

I never said asexuality doesn't exist. I'm sure it does. I'm sure Asperger's Syndrome exists too.

I'm also quite sure, and this goes doubly for "the internetz", that the proportion of people who claim to be so (for both) is no where NEAR the very minuscule proportion of the population that actually are.

True asexuality (which is not the result of hormonal imbalance or emotional repressiveness) does exist. It's also very rare.

You are the only other person I have seen to understand that.

I don't see how people don't...he's said it in terms at least as clear as what I said

I never said asexuality doesn't exist. I'm sure it does. I'm sure Asperger's Syndrome exists too.

I'm also quite sure, and this goes doubly for "the internetz", that the proportion of people who claim to be so (for both) is no where NEAR the very minuscule proportion of the population that actually are.

True asexuality (which is not the result of hormonal imbalance or emotional repressiveness) does exist. It's also very rare.

I wasn't talking to you.

I don't see how people don't...he's said it in terms at least as clear as what I said

People stopped actually reading his words long ago, and instead substituted their own outraged versions in order to give them the opportunity to froth at the mouth. I thought it a universal sort of madness, thanks for proving me wrong!

I wasn't talking to you.

Doesn't matter, now does it?

People stopped actually reading his words long ago, and instead substituted their own outraged versions in order to give them the opportunity to froth at the mouth. I thought it a universal sort of madness, thanks for proving me wrong!
Sarky disproves universal madness. I guess there is a first for everything...

I never said asexuality doesn't exist. I'm sure it does. I'm sure Asperger's Syndrome exists too.

I'm also quite sure, and this goes doubly for "the internetz", that the proportion of people who claim to be so (for both) is no where NEAR the very minuscule proportion of the population that actually are.

True asexuality (which is not the result of hormonal imbalance or emotional repressiveness) does exist. It's also very rare.

Who are you to judge what I actually am?

And there doesn't seem to me to be a much greater amount of asexuals on the internet than what the studies that have been done so far have suggested.

Who are you to judge what I actually am?

Me? I'm nobody. A faceless, nameless wall of text in the void. Which makes me wonder why you care about what judgments about you I come up with.

People stopped actually reading his words long ago, and instead substituted their own outraged versions in order to give them the opportunity to froth at the mouth. I thought it a universal sort of madness, thanks for proving me wrong!

I think it's pretty obvious what he does, but in some cases, whether there is an ulterior point to it or not, being a jackass is still being a jackass.

Me? I'm nobody. A faceless, nameless wall of text in the void. Which makes me wonder why you care about what judgments about you I come up with.

Your judgment about me doesn't matter to me so much as people in real life who think like you... like when my brother brings up my asexuality for some reason in conversation and my mom starts rolling around on the floor screaming "I don't like it!" That hurts. You just made me angry because I know I'll have to deal with the same judgment in real life.

Who are you to judge what I actually am?

And there doesn't seem to me to be a much greater amount of asexuals on the internet than what the studies that have been done so far have suggested.

he didn't really say anything about you personally

he didn't really say anything about you personally

I think he has in the past...but I think it was a long time ago so I just have a vague sense of it. Can't remember for sure.

:rolleyes: If all girls are bi then men are too [/end sarcasism].

I personally think not all are bi, but have the ability of jumping over the "fence" depending on the threshold level & potential/drive to get over it. The threshold level could be based on cultural, parental, etc. factors on the person's mindset on the idea of love (or relationships in general). So, if someone is strongly influenced by someone/something that oppossed one of the sexual categories, that person may not get over the "fence". This theory also depends on the persons experiance & decisions that might contribute the drive to get over the hump. Now, the sides of the fence here are homosexuality and heterosexuality (in the western world sense). The fence is a transitional state (bisexuality) that is not narrow and many may find themselves staying there for a long time (maybe even forever).

This is all scientific talk above, but basically I think that people are in different states of the sexual continuum due to external & internal forces of the person. Not everyone is bi, or gay, or straight; everyone is a mutable human being. But in any case, we should accept of not only who we our but who our sisters & brothers are so we may coexist peacefully.

Part one of your friend's reasoning doesn't follow with the rest of the argument. Part two is like saying a human can do [activity goes here]. They may be physically able, but do they want to?


Other than that, I'd say that it comes down to genetic predisposition and environmental triggers of said predisposition. Ultimately, I'd say sexuality is out of the individual's control.

So, are all girls bi?

Only if all [subsection of humanity] are [insert gross generalization].

nsg madlibs my fav!

However, I disagree with your friend on the "all women are bisexual" - I'd say EVERYONE falls on that 0-100 scale of sexuality, and regardless of gender, we all fall somewhere in between. I'm somewhere around 1.5 or something.

Actually, according to the research Alfred Kinsey did proves most people(both genders) are to a degree bisexual. The whole "heterosexuality is the norm" is an informal/formal De facto myth. Now on the flip side for to that revalation this means only a small percentage of men and women are true heterosexuals or true homosexuals. Further proof can be found on almost any dating site on the internet. So, Amarenthe, I agree with you that a lot of girls are "bi," but so are a lot of the boys.

Also, my apologies if someone has already posted Kinsey's reseach... A few pages in and all the guys are posting that women are bisexual in typical over-hyped-hetero fashion; just seemed a little unfair.

bigoted - Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause

prejudice - An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

That'll about do it I think.

Yeah it does mate, thanks very much. No need for your undertones of do I have to spell it out for you, because yes you fucking do I was asking you a question, treat me as an inquisitive child when I ask these questions, mate. You explain it far better when I ask you questions on the law.

I happen to think that humans are merely sexual beings. To ascribe titles like ""bi" or "homosexual" or "hetero" is, I don't know, doing a disservice to us. I know that these are sexuality titles that society ascribes to men and women. I just find these sad. I consider myself a sexual being. Both men and women are attractive, and I don't have a problem saying so.

This is a good way to look at it.

The only reason for sexual attracting is to mate. The animal incentive to mate is the pleasure they get from it. When one girl figures out she can do that with another girl, or a guy with another guy, use toys, masturbate, etc, they emulate real intercourse. Gay individuals may be 'gay' because of insecurities with the opposite sex (Rape victims, bad relationship experiences, very masculine/feminine household, etc)

I'm reading Freud's "Deviant Love", and I'll have to disagree with you there.

Your friend is engaging in a common error among young men: the mistake of assuming that his personal kinks are actual reality.

No, all girls are not bisexual. In fact, most of the girls who will TELL you they're bisexual are actually just straight girls who want to seem hot or cool to boys.

Your friend is also very carefully specifying that only GIRLS are this way, probably because he's very insecure about his own sexuality and doesn't want there to be any mistake about the fact that he is TOTALLY STRAIGHT, GUYS. LIKE REALLY.

Tell him to calm the fuck down and stop expecting real life to be like what he reads in Penthouse.

He's not making this point because of an insecurity with his own sexuality. In fact, it's far from it. He's incredibly comfortable with his sexuality. You can attack the argument without attacking the individual.

Bisexuals are whores.
Women are whores.
Therefore, women are bisexuals.

Simple.

Right...


Recognizing that the female form is beautiful is not sexual attraction. It's aesthetic attraction. You can recognize that someone is beautiful without wanting to have sex with them, just like you can recognize that an animal or a statue is beautiful without wanting to have sex with it. So aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction are different things.

This is the argument I made. I think that just because women may see other women as beautiful does not necessarily mean they want to have sex with them.

Survival of the fittest used to treat illnesses. Now we use medicine.

Treat? Not exactly.

A friend of mine has a theory that all girls are inherently bisexual, and those who don't recognise themselves as bisexual just haven't realised it yet. Part of his reasoning is that girls can be sexually attracted to one another because the female form is beautiful and females can have a special and sensual bond.

I am personally attracted to both men and women, although I haven't ever labelled myself as "bisexual" per say. I don't really believe that all women are sexually attracted to both women and men.

What is your opinion? Are all girls bi?


Are all girls bi? No. Is your friend's theory insanely sexist? Yes.

I'm reading Freud's "Deviant Love", and I'll have to disagree with you there.

Well, obviously. Freud thought everything was deviant. Because he was a coked-out repressed little psycho.

Well, obviously. Freud thought everything was deviant. Because he was a coked-out repressed little psycho.Better yet, how many cases did he actually "complete"?

Anna O.,
Rat Man,
Little Hans,
Dora,
Wolf Man ...

He's not making this point because of an insecurity with his own sexuality. In fact, it's far from it. He's incredibly comfortable with his sexuality. You can attack the argument without attacking the individual.

Meh, I'll believe it when I see it. I've met many, many young fellows who use that "all girls are bisexual" line, and every last one of them has been deeply insecure about his own sexuality.

Although now that I think of it, pretty much all young men I've met are deeply insecure about their sexuality.

But hey, if you want to buy what your friend is selling, go nuts. I'm not the one who has to put up with having an insecure, unimaginative sexist for a friend. :D

Right...
The sarcasm didn't come through, eh? Oh well.
But hey, if you want to buy what your friend is selling, go nuts. I'm not the one who has to put up with having an insecure, unimaginative sexist for a friend. :D

You can be a pessimist if you want, but millions of adolescent males, including myself*, will keep holding out hope for a world full of easy bi girls.






*Ok, so I'm not really adolescent anymore. Leave me alone, it's funnier this way.

You can be a pessimist if you want, but millions of adolescent males, including myself*, will keep holding out hope for a world full of easy bi girls.

Hey, go right on hoping, and more power to you. I choose to believe that all men secretly want to workout in their underwear all day, then take group showers in which all manner of saucy mishaps (and a lot of harmless pinching) occur.

But the key is to not walk around telling everybody I meet about my theory that all men are bisexual, because that alerts the public to the fact that I'm a self-centered horndog who can't yet accept that the rest of the world doesn't always conform to my sexual desires. ;)

Hey, go right on hoping, and more power to you. I choose to believe that all men secretly want to workout in their underwear all day, then take group showers in which all manner of saucy mishaps (and a lot of harmless pinching) occur.

WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT.......I mean, yeah, haha, funny stuff.

>.>
<.<

Hey, go right on hoping, and more power to you. I choose to believe that all men secretly want to workout in their underwear all day, then take group showers in which all manner of saucy mishaps (and a lot of harmless pinching) occur.

Is it a secret when you have actually done that?

Well not the workout in the underwear part.