Are Bisexuals a Valid Sexual Orientation or a Myth?

[arunbg]

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.

Umm... pardon me but I see both situations in a different light. The reason we find the term "sexy" associated with kids as repulsive, is because they haven't reached sexual maturity yet (duh).
However when suppose I say my friend looks sexy, it doesn't mean that I am actually sexually attracted to the person, but rather someone of the opposite sex (or same sex if homosexual) would find him/her sexually attractive. I base my remark on what I know to be generally accepted as sexual attractiveness.

 

[matthyaouw]

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

What is the mentality of a homosexual exactly? How does this differ from a straight person?

 

[Pythagorean]

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

Ah, right, the OP. When I say homosexuality, I'm not talking about strictly homosexual animal.

Bisexuality, I think, is a social term, not a real biological term. A bisexual is just x% homosexual.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I'm sorry, have we brought up the bonobos yet? And of course culture shapes your outlook - e.g. whether or not cousins are for kissin' ;)

 

[Astronuc]

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)

In my case, monogamy is a personal choice, and not based on societal expectation, but my own personal decision. Certainly it was influenced by my parents who have been married for 50 years since last year, and my granparents 50+ years each.

I guess it comes down to the simple fact that I made a promise to love, cherish, care for, . . . my wife. That's not to say I am tempted. I've met two other women in my life, who under different circumstances I might have married. But, I made a choice - actually 25 years ago today - to marry the woman I did. I simply couldn't give that same relationship to two or women simultaneously - it just wouldn't work and it certainly wouldn't be fair to the women.

I've heard statistics that indicate 70-75% of men have affairs outside of their primary relationship (which includes, but is not limited, to marriage), and that 30-50% of women do (women have been catching up to men). I was surprised, but then more than 50% of marriages fail.

Apparently there are certain biologically-based predispositions (or orientations) with respect to sexuality, but also environment plays a role. My gay/lesbian friends really don't seem all that different from my heterosexual friends - except in the matter of sexuality.

 

[nabuco]

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).

This is just a lame attempt to make things sound less important than they are, just because they don't occur in nature. Well, guess what, if we really liked nature that much why do we live in cities?

Education and work are also "purely social constructs". Animals don't go to school and don't have jobs.

Homosexual rates occur in all types of animal populations too, and it's generally genetic-based.

Animals don't have sex for pleasure. The comparison is meaningless. Animals make noise with their mouth too, but we don't say they are "talking". Just because they sometimes engage in what seems like homosexual behavior, it doesn't make it so.

 

[Huckleberry]

This is just a lame attempt to make things sound less important than they are, just because they don't occur in nature. Well, guess what, if we really liked nature that much why do we live in cities?

Education and work are also "purely social constructs". Animals don't go to school and don't have jobs.



Animals don't have sex for pleasure. The comparison is meaningless. Animals make noise with their mouth too, but we don't say they are "talking". Just because they sometimes engage in what seems like homosexual behavior, it doesn't make it so.

All types of sexual behavior happen in nature. Many people live in cities because it is our nature as social animals. Some animals do learn from others and do have work they must to do survive, much like humans have school and jobs. Some animals do have sex for pleasure. Some do communicate with sounds that come from their mouths. The only thing I might agree with is that the comparison is meaningless. What does the sexuality of one species of animal have to do with that of another?

I don't see a need for a definition of sexual preferences that are 'all or nothing'. I believe that some people are and will only ever be interested in heterosexual sex, and some in homosexual sex. Some will prefer one over the other but not be opposed to eaither. Some will prefer both sexes equally. Some will prefer no sex at all. Some will change their perspective at some point in their life from one preference to another. There may be some natural laws that determine what sexual preference an individual will have, but it is not the same from one individual to another. All types of sexual behavior that we are capable of will exist in society. Why should we try to put a rigid definition to a behavior that is so varied in nature? I see it as enough to say that a bisexual is a person that is sexually attracted to either sex, regardless of what [the strength of their] preferences may be.

 

[Pythagorean]

I simply couldn't give that same relationship to two or women simultaneously - it just wouldn't work and it certainly wouldn't be fair to the women.

As usual, I agree with most of your post. I just wanted to point at that being polymorous (not polygamist) is more natural to us. It's not having two (or more) partners at once, it's just changing women frequently and not swearing yourself to one for the rest of your life.

I too, am in a monogamous relationship. I have a girlfriend (not married) of two years. I definitely have urges when I see any cute thing walking down the street.

This is just a lame attempt to make things sound less important than they are, just because they don't occur in nature. Well, guess what, if we really liked nature that much why do we live in cities?

Education and work are also "purely social constructs". Animals don't go to school and don't have jobs.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't occur in nature. What's more important that none of us are any good at monogamy (except a handful of people that are either nuts or too insecure to move away from what they already have... or miserably forcing themself to "stick with it for the kids")

Education and work are in animals lives on all levels, it's just not organized and doesn't use language (that's one of the main differences between us and other animals: language.

Animals don't have sex for pleasure. The comparison is meaningless. Animals make noise with their mouth too, but we don't say they are "talking". Just because they sometimes engage in what seems like homosexual behavior, it doesn't make it so.

All you've proven to me with this paragraph is you don't know anything about animals. Maybe you should take a couple ecology/biology classes and then come back and finish this argument.

 

[loseyourname]

This is just a lame attempt to make things sound less important than they are, just because they don't occur in nature. Well, guess what, if we really liked nature that much why do we live in cities?

Education and work are also "purely social constructs". Animals don't go to school and don't have jobs.

He didn't say they're bad things because they're social constructs, just that they're social constructs.

Animals don't have sex for pleasure. The comparison is meaningless. Animals make noise with their mouth too, but we don't say they are "talking". Just because they sometimes engage in what seems like homosexual behavior, it doesn't make it so.

At the very least, dolphins and bonobos engage in sex for pleasure. All types of primates also masturbate, which you may or may not consider "sex," but it certainly qualifies as sexually pleasurable and there isn't likely to be any other reason to do it. You're going to arouse the ire of 0TheSwerve0 making these kinds of statements. She's a primatology grad and has spent hundreds of hours studying these guys in a variety of settings for the last few years.

And really, what do you mean by "we don't say they're talking?" They don't speak to each other using human languages (although some have been taught a fair amount of sign language), but plenty of animals communicate vocally, sometimes fairly complex and varied messages. The difference between that and human vocal communication is one of degree, not kind. The only difference in kind seems to be that no animals are able to communicate using sentences, that is, they have no concept or understanding of syntax.

 

[anisotropic]

This thread is gay.



Ok, sorry, I just had to! Hopefully this forum has a sense of humour.

Carry on...

 

[loseyourname]

I won't quote on the stuff about animals because, as I said, it is irrelevant. Infanticide is as common among animals as homosexuality, perhaps more so, but nobody is foolish enough to offer the argument that there's nothing wrong with killing your children.

Well of course not. Even though people too involved in ideological politics still fail to distinguish between facts and values, in ethics anyway, very few since Hume pointed out the "is-ought" gap have honestly tried to derive imperative conclusions from statements of fact.

But, this thread isn't asking whether we should accept bisexuality as morally acceptable behavior. It's just asking whether bisexual creatures actually exist.

 

[nabuco]

This thread is gay

I haven't noticed that until I read Pythagorean's post. To think I fell for it...

 

[Pythagorean]

He didn't say it was a bad thing, but he did make it sound like social constructs are less relevant than biological impulses.

ironically, following social constructs is often a biological impulse regarding acceptance.

But I didn't mean to imply that they were less relevant for that reason. Social construct are only bad if they make you miserable. Nobody wants to kill their own kids (even when they do kill them), but people do want to have sex for pleasure, and that's ok with me. Furthermore, it doesn't bother me who they have it with (as long as it's not my kids, right?)

When you look to the animal world for approval for any human behavior, you are bound to be confounded by what you find. And especially so if you're not religious, as most gay/pro-gay people are.

I think you'd find the same problem in religion. For instance, how much of war and human suffering is justified by books written by 'prophets' and non-profit organizations looking for funding?

 

[nabuco]

this thread isn't asking whether we should accept bisexuality as morally acceptable behavior. It's just asking whether bisexual creatures actually exist.

I was under the impression it was about whether bisexuality is different from homosexuality. To ask if there are people who are attracted to both sexes is too silly. Or, should I say, too gay

(sorry I deleted my post, I don't want to be involved in this discussion anymore, it's just way too silly and, for the most part, incredibly juvenile)

 

[nabuco]

ironically, following social constructs is often a biological impulse regarding acceptance.

There's nothing biological regarding acceptance.

Social construct are only bad if they make you miserable.

They are only bad if you don't like them, right? Yeah, I know.

Nobody wants to kill their own kids (even when they do kill them)

Nonsense. Read the news.

people do want to have sex for pleasure, and that's ok with me.

I also want to have sex for pleasure, and I do, almost everyday, and I get a lot of pleasure. What does that have to do with anything?

Furthermore, it doesn't bother me who they have it with (as long as it's not my kids, right?)

Actually, it probably does bother you if it's a priest, but let's not talk about that...

I think you'd find the same problem in religion. For instance, how much of war and human suffering is justified by books written by 'prophets' and non-profit organizations looking for funding?

Does that come from a broken record or something? I'm so tired of this "religion brings war" stuff. For one thing, if there were no religions there would still be wars, but there would be nothing wrong with them. Your anti-war stance is essentially the product of thousands of years of religious indoctrination, although you probably don't recognize it.

Besides, all I said was that religion is the only institution that claims men are different from animals. If you're not religious you might see humans as just another species. But I didn't say we are not.

(now I'm really out of here)

 

[loseyourname]

I was under the impression it was about whether bisexuality is different from homosexuality. To ask if there are people who are attracted to both sexes is too silly. Or, should I say, too gay

Well, I think either question is silly, frankly. Of course persons exist that engage in sexual relations with both sexes, and persons exist that stick to one sex, whether it be same or other. Their sexual behavior is clearly different, so the only sense in which this question can really not be silly is to ask whether bisexuals are actually attracted to both sexes and whether homo- or heterosexuals are actually attracted to only one sex, or whether their behavior is explicable by something other than inherent attraction.

 

[Pythagorean]

Does that come from a broken record or something? I'm so tired of this "religion brings war" stuff. For one thing, if there were no religions there would still be wars, but there would be nothing wrong with them. Your anti-war stance is essentially the product of thousands of years of religious indoctrination, although you probably don't recognize it.

I've bold-typed your fallacies here.

[1]I didn't say religion causes war. We weren't talking about the causes of war. Obviously war is brought on by two extreme conflicting views whatever they may be.

[2]I thought we were talking about justification, not cause. I actually don't have a problem with war as long as it's reasoned out and not given the attributes of a holy crusade. Christopher Hitchens, for instance supports a war on terrorism, but not the crusading theme carried by the current US administration.

To the OP, Sorry to go off-topic, I'm just pointing at that somebody in this thread has a knack for forming their conclusions with the intent to argue, rather than the intent to understand.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Umm... pardon me but I see both situations in a different light. The reason we find the term "sexy" associated with kids as repulsive, is because they haven't reached sexual maturity yet (duh).

You might be reading more into this than I intended. I was describing the effects (the particular feeling of disgust) rather than the causal mechanisms (what creates the disgust).

However when suppose I say my friend looks sexy, it doesn't mean that I am actually sexually attracted to the person, but rather someone of the opposite sex (or same sex if homosexual) would find him/her sexually attractive. I base my remark on what I know to be generally accepted as sexual attractiveness.

If you can express this opinion without disgust, and without any attraction to your own gender, then on my scale you are about 99.9% heterosexual. This is just my own view of the extremes and in-betweens of the hetero-bi-homo continuum. You are free, of course, to create your own. You and I just probably differ on what those extreme ends of the scale are.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

You might be reading more into this than I intended. I was describing the effects (the particular feeling of disgust) rather than the causal mechanisms (what creates the disgust).

If you can express this opinion without disgust, and without any attraction to your own gender, then on my scale you are about 99.9% heterosexual. This is just my own view of the extremes and in-betweens of the hetero-bi-homo continuum. You are free, of course, to create your own. You and I just probably differ on what those extreme ends of the scale are.

Off on a tangent, I’m interested in understanding this post better (but for the record, to the op, yes).

I think I see you are saying that it is impossible to subjectively evaluate solely objectively. I don’t see where the emotion of disgust comes into it, and causal mechanisms, and am interested in understanding that.

One thought is that it would be evolutionarily advantageous to be able to determine to some extent the competition, thus, beneficial to heterosexuals to determine the sexiness of their competitors-others of the same sex. I don’t know whether this is a counter to the premise that ‘pure’ straights must not be able to see their own sex as sexy and that they can, whether it a counter to ‘pure’ heterosexuality, or whether it is evidenced in the bad summations some people make about what attracts the opposite sex.

Were it to counter the premise, I would add imagination, and that the empiricists especially and Samuel Taylor Coleridge with his ‘consciously paradoxical’ ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ write of how art can stir emotions that have no direct cause. If we can have feelings that aren’t directly provoked and seem not entirely about reality, when, say listening to music or reading a book, does this make it plausible that ‘pure’ straights and can appreciate members of their own sex as sexy without feeling remotely attracted? Whether or not this is an attack on the premise I think involves whether imagining an emotion already felt (sexual attraction) can extend to a different orientation. Also, importantly, it would depend on how real these imagined emotions are. This is all tricky to think about, not being of a ‘pure’ heart (bad pun), but if I believed what I am musing about, then perhaps I should be able to imagine even this.

Otherwise, it may be reason to show the anomaly of purity, as suggested, and further, also show more evolutionarily demanded reasons for fluid and homosexual genders.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I've bold-typed your fallacies here.

[1]I didn't say religion causes war. We weren't talking about the causes of war. Obviously war is brought on by two extreme conflicting views whatever they may be.

Yep, like I think I should have your stuff, but you disagree

[2]I thought we were talking about justification, not cause. I actually don't have a problem with war as long as it's reasoned out and not given the attributes of a holy crusade. Christopher Hitchens, for instance supports a war on terrorism, but not the crusading theme carried by the current US administration.

I'm going to assume your views are more complicated than you're letting on.

 

[Pythagorean]

[1]Yep, like I think I should have your stuff, but you disagree

[2]I'm going to assume your views are more complicated than you're letting on.

[1]Yeah, kind of like that. There's actually people that like working for their own things, though...

[2] I don't know what quite what you mean. My views aren't completely developed. I'm not anti-war (love my second amendment) but I'm definitely not okay with people saying they've been given divine rights.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I was under the impression it was about whether bisexuality is different from homosexuality. To ask if there are people who are attracted to both sexes is too silly. Or, should I say, too gay

Well, I think either question is silly, frankly. Of course persons exist that engage in sexual relations with both sexes, and persons exist that stick to one sex, whether it be same or other. Their sexual behavior is clearly different, so the only sense in which this question can really not be silly is to ask whether bisexuals are actually attracted to both sexes and whether homo- or heterosexuals are actually attracted to only one sex, or whether their behavior is explicable by something other than inherent attraction.

Another helpful remark falling to the wayside I see. I thought I'd pick it up and offer a response. Perhaps overall affectional orientation has a role in determining sexual orientation. Read about it here.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

[1]Yeah, kind of like that. There's actually people that like working for their own things, though...

Like might not be the right word. And this is the way people have acted, well, since before they evolved into people. Look at chimpanzee behavior - they go to war. Humans do the same and it's well documented in archaeological records. It almost seems as automatic as physical chemistry. Is it just a coincidence that people who go to war usually stand to gain much if they win? If homosexuality is supposedly maladaptive, then so is war without material gain.

[2] I don't know what quite what you mean. My views aren't completely developed. I'm not anti-war (love my second amendment) but I'm definitely not okay with people saying they've been given divine rights.

And have you completely forgot the badness of death? To say you don't have a problem with war, as long as it's backed by "reason" and not dressed up in the wrong garb, is insane. I mean, you're talking about themes and not offending your philosophical sensibilities where people's lives are at stake. How about, you accept it as a necessary evil, but you don't embrace and celebrate it?

 

[Pythagorean]

[1]Like might not be the right word. And this is the way people have acted, well, since before they evolved into people. Look at chimpanzee behavior - they go to war. Humans do the same and it's well documented in archaeological records. It almost seems as automatic as physical chemistry. Is it just a coincidence that people who go to war usually stand to gain much if they win? If homosexuality is supposedly maladaptive, then so is war without material gain.



[2]And have you completely forgot the badness of death? To say you don't have a problem with war, as long as it's backed by "reason" and not dressed up in the wrong garb, is insane. I mean, you're talking about themes and not offending your philosophical sensibilities where people's lives are at stake. How about, you accept it as a necessary evil, but you don't embrace and celebrate it?

[1] Ok... somebody likes to argue... I don't think we disagree here, but it's hard to tell with you trying to sound all intellectual.

[2]I don't embrace and celebrate it, no, but I wouldn't necessarily call it evil either. I wouldn't start a war with someone personally, because it's more profitable to befriend people and make them secure. I don't like aggressive people, and I would shoot one if my life depended on it.

No, I don't really have a problem with war or death. Of course, I can't help but try to stop my own death (and that type of mentality could lead to war where there was oppression before).

What if an aggressive persons oppresses me non-violently or threatens my ability to live without suffering? I don't think it's 'evil' of me to be violent to end it, I think the oppressors are evil.

So yes... bisexuals exist!

 

[honestrosewater]

Another helpful remark falling to the wayside I see. I thought I'd pick it up and offer a response. Perhaps overall affectional orientation has a role in determining sexual orientation. Read about it here.

There are also those who hold the view that their orientation is defined by whom one has affection towards and that their sexual attraction is based on affection for another human being's personal qualities rather than their gender or appearance, sex and gender playing no part in the attraction.

This sounds like it might be close to my case, but there are a couple of wrinkles.

I'm not sure how they mean that gender plays no part. Aren't genders collections of personal qualities? Is there much of a distinction between gender and gender roles, e.g., gender roles focus solely on behaviors, but gender can include other things?

It sounds wrong at first to say that appearance is never the basis for attraction, because I am physically attracted to people that I am sexually attracted to (hah, if the "sexual" part didn't sort that out), i.e., I find their appearance attractive and pleasing and all that good stuff. But on reflection, it's actually totally correct, the key word being "basis". The physical attraction develops as I get to know to someone. I haven't been sexually attracted to someone "at first sight" in a long time. And that's another thing...

I haven't always been this way. It seems more like something that I have trained myself to do. I could of course be wrong is that assessment, but it seems to work in ways similar to my habits regarding and control over getting angry or upset, being violent or jealous, etc.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

[1] Ok... somebody likes to argue... I don't think we disagree here, but it's hard to tell with you trying to sound all intellectual.

You said something outrageous, I commented on it. If you want to make an argument out of it, that's up to you.

[2]I don't embrace and celebrate it, no, but I wouldn't necessarily call it evil either. I wouldn't start a war with someone personally, because it's more profitable to befriend people and make them secure. I don't like aggressive people, and I would shoot one if my life depended on it.

Wait, what happened to your lofty ideals for going to war? I suppose the ideals are only pretty things to dress war up in so you can profit? (Not that this isn't what usually goes on, but just so we're clear) That last part was great hilarious :)

No, I don't really have a problem with war or death. Of course, I can't help but try to stop my own death (and that type of mentality could lead to war where there was oppression before).

What if an aggressive persons oppresses me non-violently or threatens my ability to live without suffering? I don't think it's 'evil' of me to be violent to end it, I think the oppressors are evil.

Just wow. Your views are more complicated than I thought, but not in the way I thought apparently.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

This sounds like it might be close to my case, but there are a couple of wrinkles.

Just to clarify for those not following the link, a lot of this field is uncertain and in quite a tangle, but a useful tangle at least.

I'm not sure how they mean that gender plays no part. Aren't genders collections of personal qualities? Is there much of a distinction between gender and gender roles, e.g., gender roles focus solely on behaviors, but gender can include other things?

I suppose gender and gender roles are just frameworks that one can place on a person to contextualize and interpret their behavior. Perhaps the framework (which includes cultural contexts) is what they are ignoring, yet the behaviors remain and you see them in a different light.

 

[loseyourname]

Guys, unless there is some relation between war and bisexuality that I'm not getting, I'd advise the little sidebar get dropped or moved.

Hey Shannon, why don't you help out wikipedia by expanding that stub! There's hardly any information in it. Looks like EBSCOhost and SOCindex don't go back to 1989 for the Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, either. Oh well, I'm just glad SSU hasn't cut off my access yet.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I still have mine too lol! And yeah, I have no info except wiki on affectional affiliation and asexuality.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Well, I think either question is silly, frankly. Of course persons exist that engage in sexual relations with both sexes, and persons exist that stick to one sex, whether it be same or other. Their sexual behavior is clearly different, so the only sense in which this question can really not be silly is to ask whether bisexuals are actually attracted to both sexes and whether homo- or heterosexuals are actually attracted to only one sex, or whether their behavior is explicable by something other than inherent attraction.

Thanks, OswerveO, for emphasising this. I’d missed that and agree. I find behavioural explanations interesting, but my knowledge very limited.

Sorry MIH, for my presumptions about what your views might be.

I’d been thinking of Damasio - 'Another important consequence of the pervasiveness of emotions is that virtually every image, actually perceived or recalled, is accompanied by some reaction from the apparatus of emotion.' I vaguely recall reading that emotions are generally an attraction to or repulsion from. It seemed that with extended consciousness, humans might be capable of a greater pallet of emotions that might over-ride others, like mental flowers-of-idleness. The affectional orientation link and the mention of cultural context increases my appreciation of the tangle.

This is then probably unanswerable- would a still-male dominated society be more likely find more marked delineations in men than women, like that described in results earlier in this thread?