Sexuality

Smaccoms

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Posts
2,779
Media
7
Likes
1,468
Points
583
Age
34
Location
Massachusetts (United States)
Sexuality
No Response
I disagree. Many bisexuals do in fact have a preference, and that in no way renders illegitimate their thinking of themselves as such.

Bisexuality does not refer to lack of a preference but to an ability to enjoy sexual experience with both men and women (or at least to find the idea of sex with some members of both genders to be exciting).

That sounds like the definition under the binary system. I follow a different philosophy, which I describe in my previous posts (or attempt to anyways) in this thread.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I've always been fond of Storm's model for sexuality, as can be seen here:
http://i.imgur.com/HjCyW.png

It's an expansion of Kinsey's original Homosexual-Heterosexual continuum, and in that capacity, you can land anywhere within.

Also remember one's sexual orientation is different from your sexual identity. The first encompasses who you're actually capable of loving and feeling committed to (you can't change it), the latter being how you label yourself (fluid over time).

In total agreement therewith.
 

AlphaMale

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
3,055
Media
35
Likes
5,479
Points
468
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
The problem I have with that is multi-faceted.

First, there's a 54% concordance rate between twins having the same sexual orientation. So while social and psychological factors obviously play a role, it's clear your biology accounts for a large proportion of the end result.

This actually plays perfectly into what I'm saying.

In addition, offspring can be born gay because the mother forms an allergic reaction to the H-Y antigen after multiple male births. So if you were a male child who was the last in a line of male births, you are "at higher risk" of being born gay (something like 30% of gay men are thought to be born due to this). Conversely, excessively high estrogen levels in the mother, or great stress during the prenatal period has been show to have the same effect for female offspring.

This I've never heard of at all, ever, anywhere.

Second, pose the question to any heterosexual male of when "he knew he was straight". Repeat that a very large number of times and you will find it happens at a very young age, and in less than 2% of the cases, never changes. It's certainly not something they consciously got to decide upon.

This also actually plays perfectly into what I'm saying. It's not a choice for someone, they already have attraction to both regardless if they want to admit it or not. Whatever factors (social, psychological, etc.) make them "embrace" either one side only or both sides is up to them to pinpoint. Choosing 'not' to do something isn't the same as choosing 'to' do something.

If we were born bisexual as you pose, then Freud's theories or the failed practices of Dr. John Money would have held water. I am not discounting that a person's orientation may be influenced by social factors (like in BEM's exotic becomes erotic model), or that positive and negative psychological thoughts help crystallize things. But I do think many people mistake how they label themselves and their behaviors (sexual identity) for their inner compass of who they are actually capable of loving (sexual orientation).

What sexual side people want to show is definitely influenced by social factors. Remember to most societies, anything gay is bad. People will more times than not choose to bury any and all types of homosexual thoughts and behaviors out of fear of being ridiculed (or something greater like losing a job, relationship with a family member, friend, etc.) You're saying the social factors make someone into either being straight or gay. I'm saying that the social factors make someone either show or hide one sexuality or the other.

Bolded my responses
 
Last edited:

B_bi_mmf

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Posts
3,016
Media
0
Likes
133
Points
133
Location
U.S.
Gender
Male
That sounds like the definition under the binary system. I follow a different philosophy, which I describe in my previous posts (or attempt to anyways) in this thread.

Binary only in the sense that some people have a preference and others do not. Among those with a preference, there is a huge spectrum, with presumably some 100% straight or 100% gay at the end of that spectrum.
 

Smaccoms

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Posts
2,779
Media
7
Likes
1,468
Points
583
Age
34
Location
Massachusetts (United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Binary only in the sense that some people have a preference and others do not. Among those with a preference, there is a huge spectrum, with presumably some 100% straight or 100% gay at the end of that spectrum.

I don't think like that exactly. I do not place homosexuality and heterosexuality on the same scale or spectrum. Having them on the same scale or spectrum in any way still gives the wrong impression of a choice (i.e. there's men or women, rather than there is men and then there is women).

Understand what I'm trying to say?
 
Last edited:

B_bi_mmf

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Posts
3,016
Media
0
Likes
133
Points
133
Location
U.S.
Gender
Male
I explain myself more fully on the previous page. Why do you think they belong on the same spectrum? Where does your belief come from?

These are serious questions.

Setting aside revulsion, which others have noted may arise from conflict about one's own feelings, we could make a graph with attraction to males on the x-axis and attraction to females on the y-axis. Attraction on each dimension ranges from none at all to a great deal.

Each one of us falls somewhere on that two-dimensional space.
 

Smaccoms

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Posts
2,779
Media
7
Likes
1,468
Points
583
Age
34
Location
Massachusetts (United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Setting aside revulsion, which others have noted may arise from conflict about one's own feelings, we could make a graph with attraction to males on the x-axis and attraction to females on the y-axis. Attraction on each dimension ranges from none at all to a great deal.

Each one of us falls somewhere on that two-dimensional space.

This doesn't answer my questions. This is a description of what your belief is, not your reasoning for believing in it.
 

B_bi_mmf

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Posts
3,016
Media
0
Likes
133
Points
133
Location
U.S.
Gender
Male
This figure shows the two-dimensional space that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Surely everyone falls somewhere on it.

If we consider where men fall on it, then the red ones are straight and the green ones are gay. In my opinion, it is quite reasonable for men who are rather near the vertical axis but are not right on it to consider themselves straight, and it is equally reasonable for men near the horizontal axis but not right on it to consider themselves gay.

A man on the blue line is clearly bisexual it would seem, but I bet that few would be exactly on it. I would think that most men who place themselves fairly near to the blue line would feel comfortable characterizing themselves as bisexual.

The orange dot is where I place myself. Clearly, I am bisexual.

Regarding those men who are not very near to either axis or to the blue line, I would think that those above the blue line can reasonably characterize themselves as either bisexual or straight, and that those below the blue line can reasonably characterize themselves as bisexual or gay.

This representation is predicated on a certain amount of averaging. For example, the person I find most attractive is my wife, but there are more guys I lust after than women, so I place myself somewhat below the blue line.

This graph also illustrates why I do not use the LPSG percentage system. It seems to be requiring me to place myself somewhere on the yellow line, which is definitely not where I belong.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Smaccoms

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Posts
2,779
Media
7
Likes
1,468
Points
583
Age
34
Location
Massachusetts (United States)
Sexuality
No Response
This figure shows the two-dimensional space that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Surely everyone falls somewhere on it.

If we consider where men fall on it, then the red ones are straight and the green ones are gay. In my opinion, it is quite reasonable for men who are rather near the vertical axis but are not right on it to consider themselves straight, and it is equally reasonable for men near the horizontal axis but not right on it to consider themselves gay.

A man on the blue line is clearly bisexual it would seem, but I bet that few would be exactly on it. I would think that most men who place themselves fairly near to the blue line would feel comfortable characterizing themselves as bisexual.

The orange dot is where I place myself. Clearly, I am bisexual.

Regarding those men who are not very near to either axis or to the blue line, I would think that those above the blue line can reasonably characterize themselves as either bisexual or straight, and that those below the blue line can reasonably characterize themselves as bisexual or gay.

This representation is predicated on a certain amount of averaging. For example, the person I find most attractive is my wife, but there are more guys I lust after than women, so I place myself somewhat below the blue line.

This graph also illustrates why I do not use the LPSG percentage system. It seems to be requiring me to place myself somewhere on the yellow line, which is definitely not where I belong.

This doesn't answer the two questions I asked. Also, in response to the description of what you believe, I describe what I believe on the first page of this thread...it differs with yours.