Are Bisexuals a Valid Sexual Orientation or a Myth?

[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? :tongue2:

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 :rofl:

 

[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 :rofl:

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

:rofl:

+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?

 

[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.:tongue:

Carry on...