Is what I've heard about bisexuality true?

[Eukaryote]

Oh my gosh, over the course of a day this has turned into a choice debate thread! Has it ever occured to any of you to stop debating weither or not being a gay person is a choice and actully ask one??? If you haven't done that, then shut up about it here. (sorry to be rude)

 

[bathsheba666]

Oh my gosh, over the course of a day this has turned into a choice debate thread! Has it ever occured to any of you to stop debating weither or not being a gay person is a choice and actully ask one??? If you haven't done that, then shut up about it here. (sorry to be rude)

If I understand correctly, your OP suggestion was that 'they are just like us'.

The argument about choice touches that point, because the proponents of 'sexuality is a choice' seem to be pushing the sub-text that... ...therefore bisexuals are wanton perverts.

So, unless you think that they are wanton perverts 'just like us', I'd say this choice debate is germane to your point also.

Now if we start another conversation.. like,
is being a religious fundamentalist a choice and,
once there,
is an additional helping of homophobic bigotry also a choice,
then we might be straying from your lead.

So, I don't recommend it.

 

[ComradeDavo]

It wasn't a joke.

Well it's wrong.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I'm sorry.

 

[Sh3kel]

I fully agree with the view bisexuals are simply gay and in denial.

 

[skadistic]

I fully agree with the view bisexuals are simply gay and in denial.

Maybe its pure homo/hetro that are in denial. Bisexuals are just not held down to some societal BS and just are who they are. I'd say its more about embracing the fact it doesn't rreally matter if you get your rocks off with a girl or boy. Ancient Rome and Grease was inhabited by what we today would call bisexuals. Were they all in denial? Or was more akin to what the societal norm was? A norm where people were just sexual and could appreciate the beauty of the human body both men and women. Just look at their art.

 

[warpus]

No, if I was gay, then it would be by choice and not by instinct. Instinct is what preserves our species. Homosexual relations cannot produce offspring, so it's not instinctive to be attracted to the opposite sex, it's only weakness of character that allows such a perversion to take place. Thus it is unnatural, and therefore a choice.

Congratulations, you have no friggin clue how sexual orientation works!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I am quite sure that humans are humans, just like all other humans. And so forth.

I can see bisexuals not getting respect from either group. Even if they commit to one gender. Like if a bisexual man chooses to get married to a woman and have sex only with her for the rest of his life, some homosexuals may say he is a gay man in denial. Or if a bisexual woman falls in love with another woman and commits to her, she may be paraded around as someone who is attracted to men, and therefore "proof" that being gay is a choice.

 

[Veritass]

My ex-wife told me that if I had been a better husband, she wouldn't have had to sleep with the next-door neighbor, or his wife. In this case, I don't think that she was more in tune with them as non-sexual beings; I think rather that she was just a slut.

 

[Masquerouge]

My personal opinion is that the hetero/homo categories are way too discrete. I think that we all actually rank on some wider spectrum, with 100% hetero at one side and 100% homo at the other, but just like right-handed and left-handed, "pure" heteros or homos are the exception, not the norm.

Bisexuals just happen to be around the middle of that spectrum.

So our current categorization has much more to do with cultural values than with actual biology.

 

[croxis]

I should dig my nose into the literature at some point, but Masquerouge more or less got it right. The best model I've seen is two indipendant scales, attraction to same sex is one, and attraction to the opposite sex is another.

Honestly I feel bad for bisexuals -- if they commit themselves to one person they have an entire side to their sexuality that is ignored.

 

[Pyrite]

I should dig my nose into the literature at some point, but Masquerouge more or less got it right. The best model I've seen is two indipendant scales, attraction to same sex is one, and attraction to the opposite sex is another.

Honestly I feel bad for bisexuals -- if they commit themselves to one person they have an entire side to their sexuality that is ignored.

And if heterosexuals commit to one person then all the other people that they deny for themselves are ignored.

Monogamy is essentailly curtailing your sexuality. It's best to have a girl (or more) and a boy (or more!). everybody wins!

As to being gay in denial, I'm not in denial, I'm pretty gay.

I'm just also pretty straight.

 

[croxis]

Not according to the case studies I've read.

 

[Sh3kel]

Maybe its pure homo/hetro that are in denial. Bisexuals are just not held down to some societal BS and just are who they are. I'd say its more about embracing the fact it doesn't rreally matter if you get your rocks off with a girl or boy. Ancient Rome and Grease was inhabited by what we today would call bisexuals. Were they all in denial? Or was more akin to what the societal norm was? A norm where people were just sexual and could appreciate the beauty of the human body both men and women. Just look at their art.

Finding people of your own gender sexually attractive is a counter-productive trait interms of reproduction. You are never going to have common DNA with another man unless he is your father, brother or son - all of which require the intervention of a woman - nor are two females going to share genetic material without a male being present.

Being bisexual is being a promiscous individual who has no reproductive value in his sexually activities. You're getting off and venting your sexual desires for your benefit only, and are promoting absolutely nothing to the gene pool - your line is going to die despite everything you do, unless you at some point choose to reproduce with a member of the opposite sex. I find that view to be selfish and self-centered to the point it disgusts me. Overtly gay people don't repulse me over the thought that they're attracted to members of their own sex - they piss me off over being proud of how fatalistically stupid and pointless their sexual life is. They're not celebrating liberty, they're celebrating caring only about themselves and not intending on bringing any children to the world.

Being a bi-sexual to me only means you're gay but fear not being able to pass on your line of genes on to a next generation. It doesnt' mean you're a deeper, more spiritual person. You're queer but have been blessed with a survival instinct. No more, no less.

 

[warpus]

Being bisexual is being a promiscous individual who has no reproductive value in his sexually activities.

Your assumption that every single bisexual person is promiscuous amuses me.

This isn't about values. It's what you're attracted to. If you happen to be attracted to the same sex, you can close your eyes and scream "la la la laalalalala" but it isn't going to change what sort of things you find attractive.

We each have to work around our own sexuality. Some people are just far more accepting of who they are than others.

 

[El_Machinae]

Finding people of your own gender sexually attractive is a counter-productive trait interms of reproduction.

Unless you also support the off-spring of your siblings, then it's not counterproductive. Your lack of children means that you're not creating competitors for your nephews, all your energy can be put into supporting them instead.

It's an evolutionarily powerful strategy, like left-handedness, which is why it survived so well.

 

[Sh3kel]

Your assumption that every single bisexual person is promiscuous amuses me.

How the hell is enlarging your willingness to have sex with memebers of both sexes not the epitome of promiscous behaviour? You don't have to flaunt around screaming "SEXUAL FAVORS FOR ANYONE WITH RED BLOOD" to infer that being attracted to at the very least 50% more than what is the social norm means you're at the very least 50% more likely to be more sexually active and promiscous in your attempts to attract a mate!

 

[croxis]

Right, you share genes with your uncles and aunts and cousins...

 

[Sh3kel]

Unless you also support the off-spring of your siblings, then it's not counterproductive. Your lack of children means that you're not creating competitors for your nephews, all your energy can be put into supporting them instead.

It's an evolutionarily powerful strategy, like left-handedness, which is why it survived so well.

You're essentially saying homosexuality is a means through which the group can produce a certain percentage of individuals who act as professional sitters and caretakers for those who do reproduce? It's an interesting question surely worthy of psychological study in a university. I haven't considered it from that angle, I wonder if anyone here is writing a sociology or psychology thesis and needs a topic. This could be a wonderful Masters degree thesis or even Doctorate-research material.

 

[croxis]

How the hell is enlarging your willingness to have sex with memebers of both sexes not the epitome of promiscous behaviour? You don't have to flaunt around screaming "SEXUAL FAVORS FOR ANYONE WITH RED BLOOD" to infer that being attracted to at the very least 50% more than what is the social norm means you're at the very least 50% more likely to be more sexually active and promiscous in your attempts to attract a mate!

Attraction != promiscuous. Stop distorting reality with your bias. Social norms mean nothing. Normal is really a meaningless term with no values. Anyone with even the most meager background in statistics can tell you that average or what is most common, is not enough to describe what is going on, and even less to make any value judgments on.

I suggest you read up on human sexuality before you spout off your ignorant bigotry. What you have said is no basis in reality.