Are Bisexuals a Valid Sexual Orientation or a Myth?

[radou]

Sex may be required for the typical method of reproduction, but if it wasn't pleasurable this would be a much less populous planet we live on. Yes, making a scientific examination of an emotional response like pleasure is complicated, but pleasure is an integral part of sex. Excluding it from the equation to simplify the science would only invalidate the conclusion.

I agree. And it's nice to know that one's existence was provided by pure pleasure.

So all this time at bars wasn't for pleasure seeking, but to have children with anonymous women. I'll have to tell that one at the Chicken Ranch next time I'm there.

 

[nabuco]

Perhaps I am missing something, but people being attracted to and having sex with people of all sexes has gone on for at least thousands of years.

I know, it's probably as old as sex itself.

The word "bisexual" might have only become common in English in the last century but a while ago, English didn't have terms for email, plastic, or traffic lights.

That is because email, plastic, and traffic lights did not exist then.

Also, even if people only recently differentiated all of these different "perversions", is that not worth adding a new word for, to help people identify and understand themselves better?

Could be. My impression is that new words for old things usually create confusion, but that is just me. As I said, I don't own the language.

Do you have similar problems with new scientific terminology, mathematical theories, etc.

I would have if they started calling familiar things with unfamiliar names. Which they don't do.

Which is?

Beauty?

Since when does sexual preference have to do with action?

If I'm wrong then I'm free to tell my wife that I prefer the salad but I'll have the steak

How do you know?

You think people don't manipulate language for political ends?

Why do you assume that I am not a virgin?

So you were serious about the nun thing? Cool

 

[honestrosewater]

nabuco,

Okay, I think that I am starting to understand your position more, or at least misunderstanding it less. Thank you.

Could you possibly elaborate on this a little more?

I don't think you are bisexual since I don't acknowledge the validity of the concept

Granted, there is probably someone somewhere that will manipulate anything for any reason, but assume that I am being honest in judging myself as I have described. Well, you don't have to use me as an example, of course. I am just offering myself as a guinea pig. I don't have much to hide, possibly nothing, so feel free to ask anything.

Is it that you don't like people being manipulative, and you think that is what's happening here? Or does your objection have to do with specific beliefs about the nature of sexuality?

Oh, P.S. I don't want to leave you possibly misled. I never mentioned details about any of my sexual relationships or said that I had had any. But no, I am not a virgin, and yes, I was serious about the nun thing.

 

[turbo]

To re-address the OP, bisexual people or sexually indifferent people certainly exist and have done so forever. I have never felt a sexual attraction toward another male, but I have identified strongly with other males that I loved or respected. I never shied away from females that had strong personal bonds with other females (could have been characterized as lesbians) and have counted many among my friends. One lady (who I had a severe crush on 30 years ago and seemed committed to her female partner) is currently married to a good friend of mine, and their kids are leaving the nest. A friend of mine in High School (although we saw each other rarely since we were in widely separated towns and only met during music festivals, etc) was flamingly, outrageously gay, and that's the way he wanted it. He was one of the most giving and thoughtful people that I knew at the time, and he was a moving force in my relationship with an older woman in college. He died of AIDS, and I am diminished with his loss. Tommy was a sweet generous person, and a gracious host. His sister sings in a blues band with my sister, and his brother married into my wife's family, so I think of him often.

I have a first cousin who was at first bisexual and who eventually chose a same-sex partner, and they have been together for over 20 years now. He raises Bengal cats, which he sells for over $300 each, and he just gave my sister (who lost her husband to cancer a couple of years ago) a Bengal kitten, already fixed, with shots, to keep her company. He is a sweet guy, and we never fail to connect when we see each other, though I might tease him for riding a riding a Sportster instead of a "real" Harley.

 

[Math Is Hard]

It is a strange thing to put a person's sexual preference into three little bins of either hetero,bi, or homo sexual. Sexual preference works better as a continuum. I prefer a "male" for a life partner and lover, but I am not so rigid that I cannot appreciate another woman's beauty. It seems that for me to be "completely heterosexual" I would not even be able to perceive someone of my own gender as "attractive". And that is another can of worms in itself, as I am talking about "gender"(chosen) and not "biological sex"(not chosen). The biological sex definition can get a bit iffy if we consider people who are born with both male and female reproductive parts, or who have surgically altered themselves.

 

[loseyourname]

The whole tripartite division of human sexual desire also ignores the larger continuum of sexual and gender identities a person can either have or assume. What if you like hermaphodites, male-to-females, or people that consider themselves genderqueer, or someone that is XXY that was born with a penis but had it involuntarily removed at birth? These people don't strictly fit into the male/female binary but can still be the object of sexual desire. There probably do exist people that are only attracted to those who can strictly be classified as either male or female and those people can be called bisexual, but some might be better described as "pansexual" or might take any position in between these extremes.

 

[matthyaouw]

I prefer a "male" for a life partner and lover, but I am not so rigid that I cannot appreciate another woman's beauty. It seems that for me to be "completely heterosexual" I would not even be able to perceive someone of my own gender as "attractive".

I disagree that a completely heterosexual person wouldn't be able to percive beauty in their own gender. Beauty can be appreciated on a totally aesthetic level in paintings, landscapes, etc. so why not people?

 

[radou]

I prefer a "male" for a life partner and lover, but I am not so rigid that I cannot appreciate another woman's beauty. It seems that for me to be "completely heterosexual" I would not even be able to perceive someone of my own gender as "attractive".

Hm, so if I say that a guy is good-looking (without any other thoughts referred to that), I'm a bit homosexual?

And what exactly does "to appreciate another woman's beauty" mean? How does the appreciation manifest itself?

 

[nabuco]

Okay, I think that I am starting to understand your position more, or at least misunderstanding it less

I'm having an epiphany

Granted, there is probably someone somewhere that will manipulate anything for any reason, but assume that I am being honest in judging myself as I have described.

I didn't have you in mind when I mentioned manipulation. Mostly this is done by people who are motivated by political interests as opposed to a desire to understand anything.

Is it that you don't like people being manipulative, and you think that is what's happening here?

I think what's happening here are the consequences of the manipulation that is going on somewhere else. Our minds are polluted with too many misconceptions and that clouds our understanding.

Or does your objection have to do with specific beliefs about the nature of sexuality?

My objection is restricted to my beliefs about the nature of language. Just read this thread and see how confused everyone is about human sexuality. Concepts such as sexuality spectrum, pansexuality, strict heterosexuality, gender identity... all this stuff leads to obfuscation and misunderstanding. My grandparents certainly didn't need all that nonsense, and I don't think they were poorer for it. For all our fancy talk, we still have not advanced our understanding of human sexuality a single iota. I say, let's go back to the basics and start again!

 

[radou]

Concepts such as sexuality spectrum, pansexuality, strict heterosexuality, gender identity... all this stuff leads to obfuscation and misunderstanding. My grandparents certainly didn't need all that nonsense, and I don't think they were poorer for it.

They didn't need it because they weren't splashed by the media with all of this junk as we are. I'd even go so far and call sexuality commercial.

 

[raolduke]

People aren't just baby-factories.

Tell me that when there isn't enough room to breath in 20 years. I kind of have a dire outlook on life but isn't that the point to all creatures, to survive and pass on genes? The only difference with human beings is that we can manipulate everything around us.. Destroy everything around us. And its fine.

 

[loseyourname]

My objection is restricted to my beliefs about the nature of language. Just read this thread and see how confused everyone is about human sexuality. Concepts such as sexuality spectrum, pansexuality, strict heterosexuality, gender identity... all this stuff leads to obfuscation and misunderstanding. My grandparents certainly didn't need all that nonsense, and I don't think they were poorer for it. For all our fancy talk, we still have not advanced our understanding of human sexuality a single iota. I say, let's go back to the basics and start again!

Your grandparents were probably not exposed to the greatest diversity of people, or at least didn't realize it because most people prior to a few decades ago would not be open about identifying as anything other than strictly male/female and heterosexual. At least in the United States. People have already mentioned the peculiar Athenian arrangement of pedaresty. Adult male citizens procreated with females, but preferred boys for the more pleasurable sex. The Navajo rather notoriously traditionally have androgynous people, born with a penis but considered neither male nor female, that usually have sex with men and serve as parents to orphans or in an auxiliary role helping other parents. There are indigenous people in South America who practice strict heterosexuality as mature adults, but as maturing adolescents, practice only homosexual sex. It's disingenuous to try and box this huge sprectrum of possible and actual human sexual behaviors and desires into the language of your grandparents. When you realize people like and do things that you don't have a word for, you invent a word for it, you don't pretend your words can actually capture and convey what they don't.

 

[nabuco]

It's disingenuous to try and box this huge sprectrum of possible and actual human sexual behaviors and desires into the language of your grandparents

Ironically enough, you were perfectly capable of describing this "huge sprectrum of possible and actual human sexual behaviors" using my grandparents' language. And I haven't read or heard the word 'pederasty' in decades… so much for the need of a new language

 

[loseyourname]

Do you mean to say that I used descriptive phrases rather than new jargon? Sure, we can do that, but single words are generally preferred as being a little easier to work with.

 

[honestrosewater]

And I haven't read or heard the word 'pederasty' in decades… so much for the need of a new language

I was thinking a similar thing about "tripartite" (a nice word, methinks).

I have a little more specific question now. Is there a difference in the nature or qualities of the attraction itself? That is, suppose that a homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual woman walk into a bar. They all see what to them is an attractive person. Do they all experience the same thing? Same questions for other cases as well. Does a person even experience the same attraction towards different genders?

Also, which do you guys mean when talking about sexual preferences, biologically-determined sex or self-identified gender? It makes much more sense to me to consider gender, since that is what matters more to me, and I don't even normally know a person's sex until I get to know them well enough to ask for a blood sample.(P.S. You guys need to turn up your pun-detectors. Nun-like sexual habits?! Come on, people.)

 

[nabuco]

You guys need to turn up your pun-detectors. Nun-like sexual habits?! Come on, people

It's not necessarily funny. A lot of people think of Catholics as sexual perverts.

 

[NateTG]

It's not necessarily funny. A lot of people think of Catholics as sexual perverts.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily apply to Catholics, but...

Chastity... the most unnatural of all the sexual perversions.
- Aldous Huxley

 

[ray b]

It's not necessarily funny. A lot of people think of Catholics as sexual perverts.

+1 but I include all of the abrahamic religions not just the Catholics
as they all have a very wrong teaching on sex

and yes BI's do exist, while I am not I have known several both men and women inc my first GF who are bi and didnot change to pick one way but remain life long bi's

I do argee women are more likely to be bi but bi men are also out there

 

[nabuco]

+1 but I include all of the abrahamic religions not just the Catholics as they all have a very wrong teaching on sex

And, pray tell us, what is the correct way to teach about sex?

I have two prepubescent kids. I'm honestly seeking for an answer.

 

[ray b]

And, pray tell us, what is the correct way to teach about sex?

I have two prepubescent kids. I'm honestly seeking for an answer.

SEX IS
while most peOple are hetero in sexual relations
some people don't pick hetero- relationships
this is not evil or perverted it is simply the way they are
only you can know what is right for you
do NOT allow others to pressure or force you into anything
ESP that feels wrong to you
but remember everyone is different and what feels wrong to you maybe right for them
judge people by how they treat others, AND YOU
not by their sexual partners

 

[honestrosewater]

It's not necessarily funny. A lot of people think of Catholics as sexual perverts.

Hah. Oh, I see.

I quite like ray b's advice.

 

[radou]

Chastity... the most unnatural of all the sexual perversions.
- Aldous Huxley

+1 but I include all of the abrahamic religions not just the Catholics
as they all have a very wrong teaching on sex

Which doesn't matter at all, since no normal person follows religious teachings about sex.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I disagree that a completely heterosexual person wouldn't be able to percive beauty in their own gender. Beauty can be appreciated on a totally aesthetic level in paintings, landscapes, etc. so why not people?

I didn't state this well. Let me rectify by saying that a "pure" (by my definition) heterosexual would not be able to perceive sexual attractiveness in his/her own gender. I mean this in the same way that a person could look at a child and say "that is a beautiful child" but could not conceive that "this is a sexy child". The thought would be repulsive. But most heterosexual people can look at an adult person of their own gender and say, "that is a sexy person", and not feel revulsion.
That is why I question the notion of pure or absolute heterosexuality. I don't think that it does not exist, but I think it is an anomoly.

 

[Astronuc]

My objection is restricted to my beliefs about the nature of language. Just read this thread and see how confused everyone is about human sexuality.

Not everyone is confused about sexuality, but certainly some maybe. And there seems to be some degree of denial, as in - "I don't believe, therefore it can't be".

There does seem to some disagreement and perhaps confusion on the meaning of terms - that is about 'semantics', not sexuality.

Certainly humans have a penchant for classifying or categorizing - and sometimes arbitarily so. I refer to loseyourname's posts.

If I can look at another man and recognize that he appears handsome, i.e. he is attractive to women, that doesn't make me less heterosexual. I cannot look at another man and feel sexual attraction. In fact, even with women, I can see women as attractive (pleasant to look at), but still not feel sexually attracted.

Like Turbo-1, I have gay friends and straight friends, and a few in between. That's just the way it is.

 

[matthyaouw]

I didn't state this well. Let me rectify by saying that a "pure" (by my definition) heterosexual would not be able to perceive sexual attractiveness in his/her own gender. I mean this in the same way that a person could look at a child and say "that is a beautiful child" but could not conceive that "this is a sexy child". The thought would be repulsive. But most heterosexual people can look at an adult person of their own gender and say, "that is a sexy person", and not feel revulsion.
That is why I question the notion of pure or absolute heterosexuality. I don't think that it does not exist, but I think it is an anomoly.

Ok, I understand now :)

I have wondered myself about 'pure' heterosexuality. I guess that there is a societal aspect in the revulsion that some straight people get when confronted with something they might deem homosexual.

 

[light_bulb]

i think i hit the wrong checkbox lol, anyhoo fill in the d**n it so people know what your talking about, i take it to mean "download it", have seen them in real life so... not that i'd ever engage in anything like that but i have been all over the web and seen it.

 

[Pythagorean]

The reason why bi-sexual exists.. Very obscure opinion but.. A homosexual life style is completely contradicting to the human race - to have children and pass genes on to your off-spring. If you're a homosexual, it seems that you unconsciously lead a very destructive life style in that sense. Bi-sexuals do have the ability to create children with another individual despite whether or not they are trying to concieve or not.

wait. So you're implying that heterosexuals only have sex to concieve? It's not about pleasure?

I must be doing something wrong then (thank heavens).

 

[raolduke]

The phallic stage of an individual’s life could be described as pleasuring one's self similar to how one goes through oral stages, teething, as a child. They aren't looking to conceive but rather just satisfy some instinct or an attempt to take away some subconscious pain. On the other hand there are people who look to have children with respectable partners in hopes of having a family and instilling principles in their off spring. Do these individuals, which want to have some sort of stability in a family, not experience phallic pleasure or are they past that? I conclude that there are people out there that don't act on impulse... Western culture influences a lot of opinion about what life is about and what you need in your life; I'm not sure if anyone would be bold enough to discuss influences of modern culture on sexual preference, because that's exactly what it is, preference.

 

[Pythagorean]

On the other hand there are people who look to have children with respectable partners in hopes of having a family and instilling principles in their off spring. Do these individuals, which want to have some sort of stability in a family, not experience phallic pleasure or are they past that?

Well, something like monogamy (and family) is purely a social construct; most people do it because its expected of them by society (their family and friends). There's maybe one or two animals that I know of that mate for life and they're not humans. (about 70% of Human males cheat on their significant other and about 40% of human females do)

Homosexual rates occur in all types of animal populations too, and it's generally genetic-based. People are born that way, that don't "grow up" or get "past that".

 

[raolduke]

Is the mentality of a bi-sexual the same as that of a homosexual?