Bi-Sexuals: do they exist?

[HeavenTornApart]

ok its a weird question but here goes.

i was reading a so-called scientific study into sexuality and the author claimed that bisexuality does not exist people are either hetrosexual or homosexual, no in betweens.

now personalley i find this laughable.

so people who thinks bisexuals exist and who thinks they are a figment of our imagination.

i will also note here right from the start i have nothing against bisexuals (if they exist) I'm gay myself

 

[Crosson]

I think there is no such thing as a perfect bisexual; desiring men and women exactly equally over the course of a lifetime.

Just because I prefer chocolate to vanilla, doesn't mean that I will forsake vanilla for my whole life. That means that heterosexuals can still be consider such despite the occasional homosexual meanderings. Or is this the definition of bisexual? If so then there would be hardly any perfect non-bisexual person.

 

[Moridin]

Before discussing the phenomena of bisexuality, some things needs to be made clear. How can one reach a conclusion on something if the basic facts are unknown or not well researched?

What is sexuality?
What makes people homosexuals? Is this an exclusive thing, or can it be altered in any way?
What is the biochemistry behind 'love'?
How much does genes play a role? How much does the structure of society play a role?

As there are people in the world who call themselves 'bisexuals', they obviously exists.

 

[HeavenTornApart]

well i will attempt to answer the questions posed.

what is sexuality? here are the most common definitions:
Involves giving and receiving sexual pleasure, as well as enabling reproduction. Sexuality is a total sensory experience, involving the whole mind and body--not just the genitals. Sexuality is shaped by a person's values, attitudes, behaviors, physical appearance, beliefs, emotions, personality, likes and dislikes, and spiritual selves, as well as all the ways in which one has been socialized.
www.thehardnessfactor.com/exclusives/glossary.html

Term generally used to refer to sexual orientation. In Freudian psychoanalysis, sexuality is formed in the gradual organization of the libidinal drives to focus upon a particular object. The character of that object depends upon the subject s particular path through the various stages of psychic development.
www.adamranson.freeserve.co.uk/critical%20concepts.htm[/URL]

what makes people homosexuals? well its fairly easy
sexual desire within the same sex.
[url]www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm[/url]

Sexual relationships with individuals of the same gender.
[PLAIN]www.sexualcounselling.com/Glossary/Glossaryh.htm[/URL]

Being attracted to or aroused by members of the same gender. See Sexual Orientation.
allpsych.com/dictionary/dictionary2.html

a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

what is the biochemistry behind love? is this really relevant to the topic in hand?

and the final question "nature vs nature"? still haven't got a definite answer to this one but general consensus is that its partly both.

i think that in general people are classed as homosexual if they only like people of their own gender, and classed as straight if they only like the opposite sex. this doesn't been that everyone is bi sexual as you seem to suggest crosson as statistically only one in 7 men have homosexual, tendencies so that means an awful lot of guys are in fact completely straight (damn), however homosexual tendencies may mean either being a full blown queen like i am, or it could just mean having a quick paddle in the gay pool but not going in for a full swim. which would seem to indicate bisexuality. however if a guy trys gay sex just once in his life during his college years perhaps would this make him bi? how many times do you need to experiment before it classes as bi or are "bisexuals" simply greedy peple who can't decide what they want so they keep on experimenting?

 

[matthyaouw]

From personal experience, I'm inclined to say bisexuality does exist.

i was reading a so-called scientific study into sexuality and the author claimed that bisexuality does not exist people are either hetrosexual or homosexual, no in betweens.

I don't suppose you could link to it could you? I wouldn't mind reading it.

 

[Moridin]

what makes people homosexuals? well its fairly easy: sexual desire within the same sex.

You are looking at the result, not the origin or cause. Your definition of 'sexuality' does not cover the most basic reason for its existence; reproduction and the biological origin of it.

Since so much is apparently unknown or much of it lacks true scientific scrutiny or research, it is beginning to look as quite a pointless question for me. There are so much left to be answered, such as

If you have intercourse with a same sex individual, does that make you a homosexual, even though you do not have any sexual desire for the same sex? Is homosexuality just a slanderous definition of people who took part in the sexual liberation in the 60s, just not with the opposite sex by religious institutions? Would no one care if religion was not such as strong force?

I am not asking for answers to these questions, just trying to highlight the sort of semi-philosophical nature of the question. Add to that the fact that sexuality is such a taboo subject for some circles to the extent that the American Psychiatric Association declared it a mental illness in the 1950¹, preventing studies on sexuality to a greater extent due to its controversial nature back them. Even though it was retracted, this controversy still exists today.

Perhaps the most basic question should be answered: What if someone just likes sex, no matter which gender it is having sex with?

¹Garret, Laurie The Coming Plague - Newly Emerging Diseases in a World out of Balance 1995

 

[Gokul43201]

i was reading a so-called scientific study into sexuality and the author claimed that bisexuality does not exist people are either hetrosexual or homosexual, no in betweens.

Could you include a citation or link to this study?

 

[HeavenTornApart]

unfortunatly the article i was reading was in an british newspaper and i can't remember which issue so no citations I am afraid.

moridin, re-read my definitons of homosexual you will see that i do not state it as being merely intercourse with a same sex person, it is a sexual desire / attraction to the same gender. almost all counties have a problem of some sort with homosexuals, however this does not define what sexuality is.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Interesting http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/h...ok&adxnnlx=1176340916-VBDOPQJK+D83TicunN6mwg" touching on this.

Says men are wired, at least, to be gay or straight, while women can go either way (in terms of brain wiring).

Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate — they get aroused by both male and female images,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.”

Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them.

I do wonder how much culture influences sexuality, though, telling women to be more passive and react to suitors rather than seeking partners themselves.

side note - 2 years back I talked about the latter part of the article in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=788559&highlight=sykes#post788559" post.

I was referring to this theory

A somewhat more straightforward clue to the origin of homosexuality is the fraternal birth order effect. Two Canadian researchers, Ray Blanchard and Anthony F. Bogaert, have shown that having older brothers substantially increases the chances that a man will be gay. Older sisters don’t count, nor does it matter whether the brothers are in the house when the boy is reared.

The finding suggests that male homosexuality in these cases is caused by some event in the womb, such as “a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies,” Dr. Bogaert wrote last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antimale antibodies could perhaps interfere with the usual masculinization of the brain that occurs before birth, though no such antibodies have yet been detected.

The fraternal birth order effect is quite substantial. Some 15 percent of gay men can attribute their homosexuality to it, based on the assumption that 1 percent to 4 percent of men are gay, and each additional older brother increases the odds of same-sex attraction by 33 percent.

 

[devil-fire]

i think iv heard of a study with results like in the OP. the study I am thinking of went something like this:

people were shown straight and homo porn and they had a lever they could adjust to express their arousal of the images. they also had their physical arousal measured. when straight/gay men were shown the respective porn, the arousal as indicated by the lever matched the physical arousal fairly well (gay men were not aroused at all by straight porn and the same for straight men with gay porn...well mostly ) but when bisexual men were show straight and gay porn, they indicated arousal via lever with both images, but were only physically aroused by one or the other. women on the other hand were physical aroused by both gay and straight porn, regardless of sexual preference but their sexual preference matched the arousal as indicated by the lever.

the conclusion that could be made was that quite often men are either straight or gay, and women are bisexual.

to me this really is irrelevant if people don't act on these impulses, so sexual preference is what really matters. if a person is physically sexually dysfunctional and becomes physically aroused by taking viagra, it dose not mean they are sexually inclined to not being straight, gay or bi, but some kind of sexual preference to do with ingesting drugs. imo this study has more to do with the sexual systems of the male/female and not to do with sexuality

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Wow, great find! Thanks for the info. Good point about the biological and social distinction in sexuality.

 

[whitay]

Is anyone on this forum not heterosexual... if so there input might be of value...

 

[Mk]

i think iv heard of a study with results like in the OP. the study I am thinking of went something like this:

people were shown straight and homo porn and they had a lever they could adjust to express their arousal of the images. they also had their physical arousal measured. when straight/gay men were shown the respective porn, the arousal as indicated by the lever matched the physical arousal fairly well (gay men were not aroused at all by straight porn and the same for straight men with gay porn...well mostly ) but when bisexual men were show straight and gay porn, they indicated arousal via lever with both images, but were only physically aroused by one or the other. women on the other hand were physical aroused by both gay and straight porn, regardless of sexual preference but their sexual preference matched the arousal as indicated by the lever.

the conclusion that could be made was that quite often men are either straight or gay, and women are bisexual.

to me this really is irrelevant if people don't act on these impulses, so sexual preference is what really matters. if a person is physically sexually dysfunctional and becomes physically aroused by taking viagra, it dose not mean they are sexually inclined to not being straight, gay or bi, but some kind of sexual preference to do with ingesting drugs. imo this study has more to do with the sexual systems of the male/female and not to do with sexuality

That experiment perfectly resembles or may have been done first by J. Michael Bailey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Bailey

 

[honestrosewater]

Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them.

Hah! That is so in line with my recent experiences, it's (not) funny. (Perhaps the women would look if they actually had time.) Anyway...

Is anyone on this forum not heterosexual... if so there input might be of value...

I consider myself bisexual, but that actually only changed a few months ago. I considered myself heterosexual previously. (I'm a 24-year-old woman.) I had deliberated about my sexual preference before, and being bisexual always seemed more rational to me. But I had just never felt physically attracted to a woman (except perhaps passingly while intoxicated and partying when I was younger or whatever).

But I came across this woman on a dating/socializing site OkCupid and was totally attracted her -- in the same way that I am attracted to men. She was also bisexual and told me that she had had a similar experience.

I think now that it might have been that I had just never seen in a woman certain qualities that I find attractive and are typically considered masculine. And I suppose there are also several feminine qualities that I find unattractive. I am talking about personality traits, by the bye, not physical features. There are actually a couple of women here at PF that I find attractive -- in a perfectly innocent, benign way -- now that I think of it.

 

[turbo]

honestrosewater, I was in a position in about 1972-3 when I was is in relationships with two ladies. One was a a young lady that I had known since childhood (a tall slim girl that grew up on a dairy farm some miles away and that I had not been drawn to until that time) and another shorter younger more voluptuous lady that was emotionally involved with the slim farm-girl. It was too much for us to process, because we lacked the maturity and commitment to make it work. Personal dynamics are important. If a facet of your make-up is important to you, you may have to decide to "settle" in the short terrm and to hang back until circumstances line up for you. I wish you the best of luck and trust that your intuition and self-awareness will pull you through. Ultimately, we love who we love because we just do, and at that point, we are compelled to act accordingly. The sociological and personal expressions of love are far more important than the sexual ones. People that you love and respect (will die for) are key. They define your character.

 

[honestrosewater]

Thanks, turbo. I'm perfectly happy being bisexual. I try not be unduly influenced by the norms of my society or other people in general. In fact, if someone asked me what exactly I meant by "woman" and "man", it would take a while for me to try to explain. Bisexuality always fit better with my other values (though, if I had my choice, "whatever-sexuality" is more accurate). I had just never felt physically attracted to a woman and couldn't picture myself having a woman as a partner in the same way that I could a man. I just figured that that's physical attraction for you and moved on.

It wasn't even a big change. I just had to check a different box and send out a little newsflash that I was now technically bisexual. No one that knew me was even surprised.

 

[nabuco]

It seems to me that "homosexual" means "someone who's attracted to the same sex", as opposed to "someone who is not attracted by the opposite sex". As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a bisexual person, only homosexuals who occasionally engage in normal sex.

But hey, who owns the language anyway?

 

[honestrosewater]

It seems to me that "homosexual" means "someone who's attracted to the same sex", as opposed to "someone who is not attracted by the opposite sex". As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a bisexual person, only homosexuals who occasionally engage in normal sex.

Is there a reason that you prefer these definitions? They seem quite inconsistent to me. Why do you mix attraction with performance? And how do you know that strict heterosexuality is even normal under that categorization, if you lump all non-strict-heterosexuals together? (I assume that, by "normal sex", you mean heterosexual sex.)

 

[raolduke]

Why not?

People just look for mindless sexual pleasure. By claiming they are bi-sexual they are just announcing that they play both sides of the field. Its just sexual deviation from mainstream affection but then again I have no idea how the rest of the United States shows love.

 

[honestrosewater]

People just look for mindless sexual pleasure. By claiming they are bi-sexual they are just announcing that they play both sides of the field. Its just sexual deviation from mainstream affection but then again I have no idea how the rest of the United States shows love.

How do you know what their sexual habits are? Are you spying on them?

 

[raolduke]

Everyone's a voyeur, their watching me watch them, watch me right now..

 

[matthyaouw]

Just wondering- why do those of you who voted 'no' feel that way?

For the record, I'm bisexual but have been in a heterosexual relationship for the past year.

 

[raolduke]

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.

 

[nabuco]

Is there a reason that you prefer these definitions?

Homo = the same

They seem quite inconsistent to me.

Few things make sense in this debate about human sexuality since too many political decisions depend on the definition of particular words. I prefer to steer clear of the politics and concentrate on the purity of the language.

Essentially my position is that we have to stop thinking of sex as something we do for pleasure, and return to the original meaning of the word, which is the biological activity required for reproduction. It's perfectly possible to have sex without any pleasure - just ask any woman with an abusive husband.

If we think of sex as something we do for pleasure, then we will no longer understand each other when we talk about it. But I'm a couple of decades late, that is already happening.

 

[honestrosewater]

Homo = the same

So you think the Ancient Greeks own Modern English?

It wasn't actually your definition of "homosexual" that I was confused about; it was your definition of "bisexual". Do you deny that bisexuals are attracted to people of the opposite sex and can be attracted to them without actually having sex with them? Both are true for me.

Few things make sense in this debate about human sexuality since too many political decisions depend on the definition of particular words. I prefer to steer clear of the politics and concentrate on the purity of the language.

Whew, I thought I might have mistakenly wandered into the politics section.

I study linguistics. I would love to know what you think is pure about English. I think it's a mutt if there ever was one. Are you perhaps trying to use something about the history of the language to dismiss other people's arguments? I am asking honestly.

Essentially my position is that we have to stop thinking of sex as something we do for pleasure, and return to the original meaning of the word, which is the biological activity required for reproduction. It's perfectly possible to have sex without any pleasure - just ask any woman with an abusive husband.

If we think of sex as something we do for pleasure, then we will no longer understand each other when we talk about it. But I'm a couple of decades late, that is already happening.

Why would we have to do that? You think there is something wrong with bringing pleasure to people?

I don't think of sex as something to do merely for pleasure, though I don't deny that pleasure is part of what's nice about sex. I am actually quite nun-like as far as my sexual habits go. How does that fit with my being bisexual according to your view?

 

[Huckleberry]

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.

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.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone tells me they are sexually attracted to both sexes then I would consider them bisexual. I've known several women and one man that have had both sex partners. Bisexuals exist.

 

[matthyaouw]

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.

Are you against contraception, abortion and abstinence too? People aren't just baby-factories.

 

[nabuco]

So you think the Ancient Greeks own Modern English?

No, nobody owns the language, and that is the problem - everyone feels free to give individual meaning to particular words.

It wasn't actually your definition of "homosexual" that I was confused about; it was your definition of "bisexual".

"Bisexual" is a modern term; the concept didn't exist a few decades ago. Back then, you were either "normal" or "perverted" (I’m using their language). Surely humans haven't changed that much that we need a completely new concept to talk about their sexuality. Or so it seems to me, who knows which ways evolution works...

Do you deny that bisexuals are attracted to people of the opposite sex and can be attracted to them without actually having sex with them?

"Attraction" is a vague term. I find it curious that whether they sell car parts or lingerie, stores can always use pictures of beautiful women to attract customers.

To answer your question, I think most women are attracted to other women for the same reason most men attracted to women, but it wouldn't make sense to say all women have homosexual feelings, we have to keep that distinction for the ones who actually act on their desires.

I would love to know what you think is pure about English.

Not much I'm afraid. English speakers have a strange habit of playing with words in a careless manner. Not all languages are like that.

You think there is something wrong with bringing pleasure to people?

I'm afraid you got it backwards. Sex is wonderful because it gives people pleasure, but giving pleasure is not what defines sex. If it hurts or gives no sensation at all it's still called sex.

The problem of associating sex with pleasure is that it impoverishes our understanding of what sex really is. Perhaps we could talk about "sexual pleasure" or something along those lines; it would make the debate a lot simpler. If we did that, you could even say you don't have to be homosexual to feel sexual pleasure with a person of the same sex, which no one who ever masturbated could possibly disagree with

I am actually quite nun-like as far as my sexual habits go. How does that fit with my being bisexual according to your view?

I don't think you are bisexual since I don't acknowledge the validity of the concept. I think you are someone who practices homosexual sex. But that's just how I like to think, and I like to think that way because it allows me to better understand people.

 

[matthyaouw]

It seems to me that "homosexual" means "someone who's attracted to the same sex", as opposed to "someone who is not attracted by the opposite sex". As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a bisexual person, only homosexuals who occasionally engage in normal sex.

But hey, who owns the language anyway?

Why not a straight person who occasionally engages in homosexual activities? many people (myself included) who consider themselves bisexual prefer the opposite sex most of the time. Some have no preference either way.

I like to think that way because it allows me to better understand people.

It strikes me that thinking that way makes it easier for you to think you understand people, rather than actually understanding them.

 

[honestrosewater]

"Bisexual" is a modern term; the concept didn't exist a few decades ago. Back then, you were either "normal" or "perverted" (I’m using their language). Surely humans haven't changed that much that we need a completely new concept to talk about their sexuality. Or so it seems to me, who knows which ways evolution works...

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. Do you even need a citation for this? Look at some art and writing from ancient civilizations, I guess. I'm not sure how you could miss it.

The word "bisexual" might have only become common in English in the last century

bisexuality : "attraction to both sexes" 1892, in translation of Krafft-Ebing; bisexual (adj.) is 1914; earlier meaning (1824) was "hermaphroditic." Not in general use until 1950s. Noun is 1922. Ambisexual was suggested 1924 but never caught on. Abbreviated form bi first attested 1956.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bisexuality

but a while ago, English didn't have terms for email, plastic, or traffic lights. Do you have a similar problem with those terms as well?

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

To answer your question, I think most women are attracted to other women for the same reason most men attracted to women,

Which is?

but it wouldn't make sense to say all women have homosexual feelings, we have to keep that distinction for the ones who actually act on their desires.

But that is what I asked. Since when does sexual preference have to do with action?

Not much I'm afraid. English speakers have a strange habit of playing with words in a careless manner. Not all languages are like that.

How do you know?

I'm afraid you got it backwards. Sex is wonderful because it gives people pleasure, but giving pleasure is not what defines sex. If it hurts or gives no sensation at all it's still called sex.

The problem of associating sex with pleasure is that it impoverishes our understanding of what sex really is. Perhaps we could talk about "sexual pleasure" or something along those lines; it would make the debate a lot simpler. If we did that, you could even say you don't have to be homosexual to feel sexual pleasure with a person of the same sex, which no one who ever masturbated could possibly disagree with

That sounds like a fine idea to me, but I thought that you did not like inventing new terms.

I don't think you are bisexual since I don't acknowledge the validity of the concept. I think you are someone who practices homosexual sex. But that's just how I like to think, and I like to think that way because it allows me to better understand people.

Why do you assume that I am not a virgin?

 

[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.

:rofl:

 

[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.