Are Bisexuals a Valid Sexual Orientation or a Myth?

[Math Is Hard]

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

oh, no offense taken. I am still just trying to work out a thoughtful reply to your post. I also just got back in town last night -- and speaking of, I read something interesting in Discover magazine while I was on the train coming back. It was about research into genes and homosexuality and theories about what evolutionary purpose homosexuality might serve. I thought about you when I was reading it. I should go dig it out of my bag.

 

[honestrosewater]

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?

What you mention, domination in society, seems like more of a cultural than a biological thing, and it strikes me that ideas about masculinity and its importance might be what keeps some men from considering homosexuality or causes them to be repulsed by it.

There's a sociologist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kimmel" , who studies masculinity and is pretty entertaining. He seems to be somewhat popular (as sociologists go, haha), so it's easy to find his work, talks, etc.

It was about research into genes and homosexuality and theories about what evolutionary purpose homosexuality might serve.

I've seen arildno mention things like that, homosexuals taking care of children and such.

 

[raolduke]

This whole thread makes me think that bi-sexuality doesn't exist.. Its just a matter of preference, attraction, sensations, and maybe a little liquid courage. Of course the word exists but it doesn't really mean anything other than one who enjoys hetero and homosexual relationships. Maybe if we had some insight into certain profiles and traits that a "bi-sexual" holds, we could do some sort of psycho-analyzation of the question.

 

[honestrosewater]

Of course the word exists but it doesn't really mean anything other than one who enjoys hetero and homosexual relationships.

And how does this differ from saying that "heterosexuality" doesn't really mean anything other than one who enjoys non-homosexual relationships?

Maybe if we had some insight into certain profiles and traits that a "bi-sexual" holds, we could do some sort of psycho-analyzation of the question.

Haha, yes, if only...

But on that note, I did come across this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...e&db=PubMed&list_uids=12529061&dopt=Citation".

Although it is typically presumed that heterosexual individuals only fall in love with other-gender partners and gay-lesbian individuals only fall in love with same-gender partners, this is not always so. The author develops a biobehavioral model of love and desire to explain why. The model specifies that (a) the evolved processes underlying sexual desire and affectional bonding are functionally independent; (b) the processes underlying affectional bonding are not intrinsically oriented toward other-gender or same-gender partners; (c) the biobehavioral links between love and desire are bidirectional, particularly among women. These claims are supported by social-psychological, historical, and cross-cultural research on human love and sexuality as well as by evidence regarding the evolved biobehavioral mechanisms underlying mammalian mating and social bonding.

 

[raolduke]

roffle.. You could say all of that but the way I look at it is you are either heterosexual or your not.. The intention of sex is to pass on your traits (and in humans, principle) to your offspring with the best candidate for creating a stronger being. I think its evident why we are becoming "over populated". Sexual deviation, like homosexuality and bisexuality, just seems like flaw but doesn’t seem very relevant to creatures that can go about satisfying them selves in non-traditional fashions.

 

[honestrosewater]

The intention of sex is to pass on your traits (and in humans, principle) to your offspring with the best candidate for creating a stronger being.

You are ascribing intentional action to evolutionary processes? Even if that is defensible, why should humans care what evolution wants? By the same reasoning, couldn't you argue that the intention of viruses is to infect hosts, so we shouldn't try to cure viral diseases? In fact, we shouldn't try to cure any diseases, should we? Unless one of the intentions of humans is to cure diseases. How exactly are we to know the intentions of evolution anyway?

 

[Pythagorean]

Sexual deviation, like homosexuality and bisexuality, just seems like flaw but doesn’t seem very relevant to creatures that can go about satisfying them selves in non-traditional fashions.

This makes no sense to me.

 

[raolduke]

This makes no sense to me.

Pornography, masturbation, and other things like masochism.

We don't care about evolution because we really don't care about anything else.. We take everything for granted and there are too few that do "care".

You are ascribing intentional action to evolutionary processes? Even if that is defensible, why should humans care what evolution wants? By the same reasoning, couldn't you argue that the intention of viruses is to infect hosts, so we shouldn't try to cure viral diseases? In fact, we shouldn't try to cure any diseases, should we? Unless one of the intentions of humans is to cure diseases. How exactly are we to know the intentions of evolution anyway?

We destroy viruses because they hinder our growth mentally as well as physically.. They make us feel crumby.. They have the same right to life as we do but we have something called a "spirit". What can you conclude about necessary bacterias that help us as humans survive?

When I think of applying purpose for life, the same as when I was very young, the dream of every person was to grow old with a family. In my mind this includes: Going to school, getting a job, securing retirement, and dying.. Love fits in there somewhere I am sure.

Explain to me then how love factors in and your definition paternity and maternity?

 

[Pythagorean]

Pornography, masturbation, and other things like masochism.

We don't care about evolution because we really don't care about anything else.. We take everything for granted and there are too few that do "care".

you make it sound so... 'holier than thou' to care. I don't care about evoloution myself. It's an interesting subject and all, but it's not my subject.

We destroy viruses because they hinder our growth mentally as well as physically.. They make us feel crumby.. They have the same right to life as we do but we have something called a "spirit". What can you conclude about necessary bacterias that help us as humans survive?

There's really no such thing as a 'right' to life... I mean, it's not a physical, tangible thing, which means that (more than likely) it's a human construction. If it's a human construction then there are no set rules, all that we really care about is our own survival and comfort (as with every other animal). In that light, of course, certain viruses don't have a chance to live, regardless of their 'rights'.

 

[Huckleberry]

roffle.. You could say all of that but the way I look at it is you are either heterosexual or your not.. The intention of sex is to pass on your traits (and in humans, principle) to your offspring with the best candidate for creating a stronger being. I think its evident why we are becoming "over populated". Sexual deviation, like homosexuality and bisexuality, just seems like flaw but doesn’t seem very relevant to creatures that can go about satisfying them selves in non-traditional fashions.

I highly doubt that bisexuals, and especially homosexuals, are responsible for overpopulation. That is a different issue entirely.

The intention of sex is whatever the individuals involved decide it is. Creating offspring is an effect of the action, not the cause of it. Would be funny if it was. Oops, I just had another child. Damn me, my deviant mind and my empty wallet.

Bisexuality and homosexuality may seem like flaws to you, and I'm fine with that. Hopefully you can accept that others disagree with you.

Stronger, Faster, Better babies, dadadadadadadadada. That part is probably true. Still funny though.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

oh, no offense taken. I am still just trying to work out a thoughtful reply to your post. I also just got back in town last night -- and speaking of, I read something interesting in Discover magazine while I was on the train coming back. It was about research into genes and homosexuality and theories about what evolutionary purpose homosexuality might serve. I thought about you when I was reading it. I should go dig it out of my bag.

thanks, and yes, just thought that may be another of many purposes.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

What you mention, domination in society, seems like more of a cultural than a biological thing, and it strikes me that ideas about masculinity and its importance might be what keeps some men from considering homosexuality or causes them to be repulsed by it.

There's a sociologist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kimmel" , who studies masculinity and is pretty entertaining. He seems to be somewhat popular (as sociologists go, haha), so it's easy to find his work, talks, etc.

I've seen arildno mention things like that, homosexuals taking care of children and such.

Very interesting, thanks!

 

[raolduke]

The intention of sex is whatever the individuals involved decide it is. Creating offspring is an effect of the action, not the cause of it. Would be funny if it was. Oops, I just had another child. Damn me, my deviant mind and my empty wallet.

It’s funny that people, I am not typing that there is anyone on this forum, argue that there are definites and absolutes but then try to say that definitions are subjective.

The word bi-sexual exists and I thought it meant one who enjoys or takes part in sexual acts/experiences/preference of both male and female. How doesn't a bi-sexual exist then?

 

[Huckleberry]

It’s funny that people, I am not typing that there is anyone on this forum, argue that there are definites and absolutes but then try to say that definitions are subjective.

I'm not sure what the context for using my quote here is, but what you have stated is sometimes the way I see it. I don't see any logical paradox in that statement or any other combination of absolute and relative definitions and ideas. I see no reason to assume that the definition and the idea it is defining have any relation. I don't know that my thoughts and the thoughts of others are an acurate representation of what actually exists. The strength of the definition is in how widely agreed upon it is to the idea it represents. When two people can look at the same thing and perceive something completely different, has the idea they are trying to describe changed, or have the definitions they are using to describe the idea changed? I believe that either case could be true or false.

I would rather try to undersand someone elses concept of a thing and make an argument in their terms. It's difficult to argue about a thing if people can't agree how to define what it is.

 

[raolduke]

The most widely accepted statement is truth?
Consensus, conformity, causalities?

A word to the wise is infuriating

My problem with some people is when they try to examine things in a scientific manner and they don't put any consideration into allusion or abstraction.

While we're on the subject
Could we change the subject now?

 

[lets_pretend]

Personally, I think in terms of sexuality there is a big "spectrum" or scale per say, where people fall. One end would be "perfectly" heterosexual and the other end would be "perfectly" homosexual. Different people would fall all over on the spectrum. You might be attracted to mostly males your entire life and have one or two crushes on a woman, if you are a woman this would put you near the heterosexual end but not completely there. I think there isn't any black and white, but everyone is different.

 

[matthyaouw]

I just found this article, which may be referring to the study the opening post mentioned:
click me

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I have a friend who claims to be bisexual. He's quite obsessed with a large cleavage and has an incomprehensible amount of straight porn, he'll be glad when I out him has heterosexual I'm sure and will cease to pursue relationships with men.

Of course I think they exist whether the attraction tends to be mainly to women in the brain or men is beside the point, a heterosexual could not reasonably bring themselves to sleep with the same sex any more than a homosexual could bring themselves to sleep with the opposite sex, yeah they may do it probably when drunk or on a whim but it's not something they seek to repeat on a regular basis, unless they are bisexual, there's a point there no? I believe in the Kinsey scale, whether it's refuted or not patently anecdotal evidence is important in this case and sexuality is clearly a lot more complex than the lab tests would indicate.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Based on the studies, I'd say biologically, men are either straight or gay. But, our culture sexualizes women so much that perhaps they are also trained to see women as sexual objects and so often automatically behave accordingly.