Most People Are Not Straight Most People Are Bi

[Adrock-JD]

What an excellent day for an exorcism.

Let me conjure up a gay for pay straight dude.

Hold please.

 

[figjam]

What an excellent day for an exorcism.

Let me conjure up a gay for pay straight dude.

Hold please.

Gay for pay - it is quite self explanatory.

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

Gay for pay - it is quite self explanatory.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

 

[AngelFromAbove]

This isn't exactly accurate either. What you are measuring is a physiological response. Many of the guys could easily be focused on the act of a cock inserted into a hole, this is not necessarily an act of gay sexuality but of sexuality in general. It is amazing the things the mind can blank out in any experience when something is extremely uncomfortable in order to get through the ordeal. Or are you saying that a young man who is being raped by another man, and there's no way to get free, is gay just because his mind shuts down and blocks what is being done to him and he physically gets an erection? In that instance the body would be reacting to physical stimuli, not sexual attraction.

People are born neither gay, straight, nor bi. They are an open slate. One's sexuality becomes defined based on what stimuli one ACTIVELY chooses to act upon.

I was with you until this last statement. Sexual behavior does not equate to sexual orientation. For example, what about a female who is stimulated by men, but chooses not to have sex with them (for whatever reasons)? Is she not heterosexual? Unfortunately, that logic does not work either.

 

[medic1]

I was with you until this last statement. Sexual behavior does not equate to sexual orientation. For example, what about a female who is stimulated by men, but chooses not to have sex with them (for whatever reasons)? Is she not heterosexual? Unfortunately, that logic does not work either.

Yep !
Kinda brings us round to the"Nature or Nurture" argument .

 

[ElmosToe]

Well, if the OP was fishing, he's caught plenty.

I think it is safe to say, sexuality is complex at best and cannot be easily packaged into a quaint little science experiment.
It's a subjective aspect of human behavior that is influenced by emotion and physiology, dictated by both genetics and environment (life experiences).

Of course, I am of the mindset that sexuality is fluid throughout a person's life and this is my biased opinion based on my own subjective experience and personal observation.

The numb nut who came up with these ridiculous labels or the concept of them I think did a great disservice to society by forcibly placing restrictions on something about us humans that cannot and should not be easily identified or constrained.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

all lands sign UN a mental ans populations every right there take a woteva a runnin da sohw fa eons human rights fa real life back

or sumthang

a once populations a grow up ans figa up ans down

thankyou

happy cutlure insecure day or sumthang

 

[Adrock-JD]

Gay for pay - it is quite self explanatory.

Not necessarily... gay for pay straight dude, as opposed to gay for pay straight girl.

 

[Willie Boy]

I was with you until this last statement. Sexual behavior does not equate to sexual orientation. For example, what about a female who is stimulated by men, but chooses not to have sex with them (for whatever reasons)? Is she not heterosexual? Unfortunately, that logic does not work either.

You are missing the point. If she is physically stimulated by men, but chooses not to have sex with them and instead CHOOSES to have sex with other women she is a lesbian. Its her choice, and if that is what she wants it is her choice to make. Everybody comes across sensations/desires at any number of times in their lives. Some choose to test the waters (hence the term "experimenting" ), some refuse to even give a thought to them. Others choose to dive right in. As others have said in many a similar thread, sexuality is fluid. It can change as quickly as the mind of the individual.

As a child I was constantly raped and molested by my foster "Mommy" and "Daddy" (as they demanded I call them). Until sometime in my 11th year of life, as I was becoming to obstinate and "mature" for their tastes. The decided to find someone more fitting their needs. I survived and chose to completely abstain from the evil that was sex, of any kind. I remained that way for the most part until my partner finally broke down my walls and we began a relationship 8 years ago. There was a time in there, while I was living on the streets that I did participate in sex for pay (prostitution) to survive - It is amazing the things we as humans can weather mentally in order to stay alive - and it was mostly greasy old men, but I needed the money to survive. In time, when I was around 15, my path crossed that of the man who would adopt me, the only one I have ever found worthy of being called Father. He gave me his name, brought me into his home, and provided food and tutors for education. He even gave me a job at his company. And in time, when I had proven capable, he put me in charge of the company. When he passed away it nearly killed me, losing the only person in the world who ever cared that I was alive. Despite the fact that he had two sons by birth he left everything to me, having previously been disavowed by them. They tried to contest it and I was willing to share three ways, but it wasn't in the cards....

Sorry to have wandered. But my point is that in my life thus far I have been straight, nonsexual, gay for pay, and settled into bisexual. Genetics didn't have anything to do with any of it, as it doesn't control choice. Anyone can be whatever orientation they want. But most allow others to make the choice for them, either living up to their expectations or trying to live them down. The whole "born that way" movement was a misguided attempt to the pain of being different out of the equation. Giving the excuse that it couldn't be changed because it was written in the genes. As an attempt to build self esteem it fell short of the mark as it led to the suggestion that there was then something genetically wrong with the individual.

Gay for pay - it is quite self explanatory.

Not really. There are many different slivers in the one meaning.... basically because there are many who try to slip their desired interpretation in to support their own theories.

 

[AngelFromAbove]

You are missing the point. If she is physically stimulated by men, but chooses not to have sex with them and instead CHOOSES to have sex with other women she is a lesbian.

In my example, I never said that the female had sex with women. I said that she refrained from sex with men. Ultimately, she is still heterosexual, but she chooses not to have sex with men. I completely understand your point, but your understanding of sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior is limited.

According to many, if not most people, in your example, she would be a lesbian. However, that is not accurate. The female is still not attracted to women. Her orientation is still that of a heterosexual, even if she wants to have sex with women.

Its her choice, and if that is what she wants it is her choice to make. Everybody comes across sensations/desires at any number of times in their lives. Some choose to test the waters (hence the term "experimenting" ), some refuse to even give a thought to them. Others choose to dive right in. As others have said in many a similar thread, sexuality is fluid. It can change as quickly as the mind of the individual.

You're right. It's her choice, but that choice does not change her innate desire. Not everyone has desires or sensations. For the people who have those desires or sensations, it does not mean that all of them possess those desires for the same sex, opposite sex, or multiple sexes. Unfortunately, you are trying to intertwine sexual attraction, sexual arousal, and sexual behavior and they are three separate areas.

Sorry to have wandered. But my point is that in my life thus far I have been straight, nonsexual, gay for pay, and settled into bisexual. Genetics didn't have anything to do with any of it, as it doesn't control choice. Anyone can be whatever orientation they want. But most allow others to make the choice for them, either living up to their expectations or trying to live them down. The whole "born that way" movement was a misguided attempt to the pain of being different out of the equation. Giving the excuse that it couldn't be changed because it was written in the genes. As an attempt to build self esteem it fell short of the mark as it led to the suggestion that there was then something genetically wrong with the individual.

Anyone can label himself or herself whatever the person wants. However, it does not mean it is accurate and it only devalues the label. I cannot say that I know what exactly what your body experiences, but if you are labeling yourself based on your choices alone, that is inaccurate. Genetics affect people's choices for sexual partners. That does not mean genetics are the only factor in sexual orientation, but genetics are one factor. You really need to educate yourself about human sexuality, psychology, and physiology. You are speaking about ideas based on your own worldview, which may have been tainted by past traumatic experiences with sex and sexuality.

 

[Telstra]

This isn't exactly accurate either. What you are measuring is a physiological response. Many of the guys could easily be focused on the act of a cock inserted into a hole, this is not necessarily an act of gay sexuality but of sexuality in general. It is amazing the things the mind can blank out in any experience when something is extremely uncomfortable in order to get through the ordeal. Or are you saying that a young man who is being raped by another man, and there's no way to get free, is gay just because his mind shuts down and blocks what is being done to him and he physically gets an erection? In that instance the body would be reacting to physical stimuli, not sexual attraction.

People are born neither gay, straight, nor bi. They are an open slate. One's sexuality becomes defined based on what stimuli one ACTIVELY chooses to act upon.

Wow, this is very good information.
Is this where the kinks come into play?
where people are getting off from all sorts of different things such as golden shower, fisting, scat, pain, bondage, master and slave, being tied up .... etc ?

 

[njcollegekid]

I think it is safe to say, sexuality is complex at best and cannot be easily packaged into a quaint little science experiment.

i completely disagree. there are 2 sexes of which one may be attracted to, so your sexuality to them lies on a one-dimensional gradient between them. we figured out multi-dimensional atomic orbitals, a uni-dimensional biological drive isnt such a large problem. the main issue is that people insist on saying things like 'humans are complex and unique'. homo sapiens is just another species of kingdom animalia.
we know what attraction looks like both neurologically and cardiovascularly. when this is quantified based on how attracted you get to how many members of each sex, that is your sexuality.

You are missing the point. If she is physically stimulated by men, but chooses not to have sex with them and instead CHOOSES to have sex with other women she is a lesbian. Its her choice, and if that is what she wants it is her choice to make. Everybody comes across sensations/desires at any number of times in their lives. Some choose to test the waters (hence the term "experimenting" ), some refuse to even give a thought to them. Others choose to dive right in. As others have said in many a similar thread, sexuality is fluid. It can change as quickly as the mind of the individual.

As a child I was constantly raped and molested by my foster "Mommy" and "Daddy" (as they demanded I call them). Until sometime in my 11th year of life, as I was becoming to obstinate and "mature" for their tastes. The decided to find someone more fitting their needs. I survived and chose to completely abstain from the evil that was sex, of any kind. I remained that way for the most part until my partner finally broke down my walls and we began a relationship 8 years ago. There was a time in there, while I was living on the streets that I did participate in sex for pay (prostitution) to survive - It is amazing the things we as humans can weather mentally in order to stay alive - and it was mostly greasy old men, but I needed the money to survive. In time, when I was around 15, my path crossed that of the man who would adopt me, the only one I have ever found worthy of being called Father. He gave me his name, brought me into his home, and provided food and tutors for education. He even gave me a job at his company. And in time, when I had proven capable, he put me in charge of the company. When he passed away it nearly killed me, losing the only person in the world who ever cared that I was alive. Despite the fact that he had two sons by birth he left everything to me, having previously been disavowed by them. They tried to contest it and I was willing to share three ways, but it wasn't in the cards....

Sorry to have wandered. But my point is that in my life thus far I have been straight, nonsexual, gay for pay, and settled into bisexual. Genetics didn't have anything to do with any of it, as it doesn't control choice. Anyone can be whatever orientation they want. But most allow others to make the choice for them, either living up to their expectations or trying to live them down. The whole "born that way" movement was a misguided attempt to the pain of being different out of the equation. Giving the excuse that it couldn't be changed because it was written in the genes. As an attempt to build self esteem it fell short of the mark as it led to the suggestion that there was then something genetically wrong with the individual.



Not really. There are many different slivers in the one meaning.... basically because there are many who try to slip their desired interpretation in to support their own theories.

there actually are genetic markers found for homosexuality. its not genetically "wrong" because on an evolutionary scale it more than makes up for it in the opposite sex. look up sexual antagonism hypothesis.
your sexuality is not what you choose. its what you are hardwired to be compelled to. celebacy is not the same as asexuality for example.

 

[Adrock-JD]

Straight = Straight or Bi or Gay but in denial.

Bi = Bisexual or Gay and trying to soften the blow.

Gay = Not interested in opposite sex and no longer pretending to be.

Doesn't believe in labels = Bi or Gay but doesn't believe in labels.

Transgender = Used to be incorrectly labeled as Gay, now properly seen as Transgender.

 

[ElmosToe]

there are 2 sexes of which one may be attracted to

so where does that put neuters and hermaphrodites?
Not even going to address asexuals.

we know what attraction looks like both neurologically and cardiovascularly. when this is quantified based on how attracted you get to how many members of each sex, that is your sexuality.

Cardiovascularly? (come on now...)

That merely describes the physiology. That's just one aspect of sexuality. As I mentioned, there are a number of other factors that influence your level of attraction to people throughout your life. I think it is naive to not take into account that our emotions, experiences and environment play an active role in contributing to who or what we find attractive or who we fall in love with.

We are not stagnant animals. People learn, grow and change. Sexuality, being a part of you, will typically grow and change right along with you.

We are not merely just "one more type of animal in the animalia kingdom." Come on dude.
Human beings are different from the average animal. Do we really need to point out why? Higher level intelligence... larger brains... sentience... emotions...those are just some of the obvious reasons why human sexuality is more complex than just this simple black and white crap that these ridiculous labels attempt to identify.

Of course we all love to compartmentalize our lives to make things easier for ourselves, so it is understandable why we would choose to slap whatever orientation label on ourselves to make our life fit into some neat little box.

There a few however, who have pulled back the curtain and discovered they don't fit into a box.

 

[njcollegekid]

so where does that put neuters and hermaphrodites?
Not even going to address asexuals.




Cardiovascularly? (come on now...)

That merely describes the physiology. That's just one aspect of sexuality. As I mentioned, there are a number of other factors that influence your level of attraction to people throughout your life. I think it is naive to not take into account that our emotions, experiences and environment play an active role in contributing to who or what we find attractive or who we fall in love with.

We are not stagnant animals. People learn, grow and change. Sexuality, being a part of you, will typically grow and change right along with you.

We are not merely just "one more type of animal in the animalia kingdom." Come on dude.
Human beings are different from the average animal. Do we really need to point out why? Higher level intelligence... larger brains... sentience... emotions...those are just some of the obvious reasons why human sexuality is more complex than just this simple black and white crap that these ridiculous labels attempt to identify.

Of course we all love to compartmentalize our lives to make things easier for ourselves, so it is understandable why we would choose to slap whatever orientation label on ourselves to make our life fit into some neat little box.

There a few however, who have pulled back the curtain and discovered they don't fit into a box.

i dont know of any instances of true hermaphrodites (organisms with both sets of fully functioning reproductive organs) in our species (though there may be a small number of recorded cases). most human "hermaphrodites" are pseudo-hermaphrodites - individuals who's external genitalia does not correspond to their chromosomal sex - this is from zoological standpoint an error. something went wrong in utero. but both cases still lie on the uni-dimensional axis. its 2 points, male and female, and 2 points define a line. that gives you a gradient.
asexuals? all humans have a sex. if you dont have a Y (or a Y without a functioning SRY gene), you are female. if you do, you are male.

cardiovascularly, yes. when a tissue is being active, it gets much more bloodflow then when it just sits there. based on which tissues are active, you can see what is happening.
you are nothing more than the sum of your biochemistry. there is nothing else involved.
we do learn, so do most other animals in phylum chordata (excluding snakes, they lack a long-term memory, pretty cool actually, considering their ancestral lizards had it, it actually turned out to be harmful to them). we also grow, thats any multicellular organsim. we dont change - we can mature, but our core personality type does not change. thats just being naive.
of course we are different from the average. but not incomparable.
intelligence is a biological tool, and in regards to reproduction, not a very important one. snakes (without any long term memory, see above) hump without issues. in fact, males will often hump each other, not knowing the other is male, kinda funny to see. most creatures with memory are sentient - many papers out there on this, most mammals, lizards, birds, some fish, octopi, etc. most animals have an emotional center of the brain. anger, fear, lust, relief, etc. love, by the way, is the release of oxyctocin with dopamine, something every female mammal gets while lactating, so thats not solely human by any means.

if they dont fit into the box, they ought to diet
honestly i never understood why people are 'against labels'. the only reason i could think of is that they dont like the label they were given.
but still why be against them on principle. your SOMETHING arent you? and with over 7 billion people alive right now, and as many having already died (thats how exponential growth works, at any point there are as many of us as there have ever been so far together), do you really think there has been nobody else remotely similar to you?
and i dont necessarily mean YOU, when i said you, btw.

 

[medic1]

^Dude , there is more to Man than Biochemistry . I think Einstien would agree or maybe Shakespeare or even Ghandi .

There you go Science the Arts and Religion .

 

[njcollegekid]

^Dude , there is more to Man than Biochemistry . I think Einstien would agree or maybe Shakespeare or even Ghandi .

There you go Science the Arts and Religion .

i am yet to see any data to support that.
i think einstien would not disagree, at least not objectively, though there is a lot of subjective psychological push away from the understanding that life is simply a chemical reaction. many people seem to have a need to view themselves as alternate objects of some higher plane, not products of universal physics.

shakespeare was not biologist (neither was einstien, but he was at least in the scientific field). when discussing an organism, cite biologists, MDs, DVMs/VMDs, and PhDs; or at least BSs, not writers. also he was of an era where they didnt know about the cell, quite frankly he was ignorant on the subject. he is an artist, his talent was imagination, not knowledge and reason.

ghandi? im sorry, but a hindu, who is told from birth that all creatures are equal is probably more prone to agree with me then you seemed to think. unfortunately that agreement would be incidental as it is on the basis of faith, which is literally the belief in something without any evidence, also called delusional.
religion is not something to should ever be cited except possibly to disprove itself. it was a crutch used to try and understand the world. now it is no longer needed, a vestigial structure that persists in some weaker-minded people who need the extra support of being told they are gods special little worker bee. "There is no God, Nature sufficeth unto herself; in no wise hath she need of an author."

if we are another organism in the kingdom animalia, then you are just biochemistry. if we are something more, you bear the burden of proof. find and isolate that extra part.

 

[medic1]

^Wow , you wait 14 hrs for a reply , what do you get , , just saying.......


Though the thought of a "Nobel" sitting on my mantlepiece , for "finding" the miraculous is just , delicious..

 

[jensu846]

i am yet to see any data to support that.
i think einstien would not disagree, at least not objectively, though there is a lot of subjective psychological push away from the understanding that life is simply a chemical reaction. many people seem to have a need to view themselves as alternate objects of some higher plane, not products of universal physics.

shakespeare was not biologist (neither was einstien, but he was at least in the scientific field). when discussing an organism, cite biologists, MDs, DVMs/VMDs, and PhDs; or at least BSs, not writers. also he was of an era where they didnt know about the cell, quite frankly he was ignorant on the subject. he is an artist, his talent was imagination, not knowledge and reason.

ghandi? im sorry, but a hindu, who is told from birth that all creatures are equal is probably more prone to agree with me then you seemed to think. unfortunately that agreement would be incidental as it is on the basis of faith, which is literally the belief in something without any evidence, also called delusional.
religion is not something to should ever be cited except possibly to disprove itself. it was a crutch used to try and understand the world. now it is no longer needed, a vestigial structure that persists in some weaker-minded people who need the extra support of being told they are gods special little worker bee. "There is no God, Nature sufficeth unto herself; in no wise hath she need of an author."

if we are another organism in the kingdom animalia, then you are just biochemistry. if we are something more, you bear the burden of proof. find and isolate that extra part.

nicely put Njcollegekid.. Medic1 is no Einstein.

 

[GodlyDemon333]

so where does that put neuters and hermaphrodites?
Not even going to address asexuals.




Cardiovascularly? (come on now...)

That merely describes the physiology. That's just one aspect of sexuality. As I mentioned, there are a number of other factors that influence your level of attraction to people throughout your life. I think it is naive to not take into account that our emotions, experiences and environment play an active role in contributing to who or what we find attractive or who we fall in love with.

We are not stagnant animals. People learn, grow and change. Sexuality, being a part of you, will typically grow and change right along with you.

We are not merely just "one more type of animal in the animalia kingdom." Come on dude.
Human beings are different from the average animal. Do we really need to point out why? Higher level intelligence... larger brains... sentience... emotions...those are just some of the obvious reasons why human sexuality is more complex than just this simple black and white crap that these ridiculous labels attempt to identify.

Of course we all love to compartmentalize our lives to make things easier for ourselves, so it is understandable why we would choose to slap whatever orientation label on ourselves to make our life fit into some neat little box.

There a few however, who have pulled back the curtain and discovered they don't fit into a box.

Animals are also sentient. You incorrectly used sentience in place of sapience.

i am yet to see any data to support that.
i think einstien would not disagree, at least not objectively, though there is a lot of subjective psychological push away from the understanding that life is simply a chemical reaction. many people seem to have a need to view themselves as alternate objects of some higher plane, not products of universal physics.

shakespeare was not biologist (neither was einstien, but he was at least in the scientific field). when discussing an organism, cite biologists, MDs, DVMs/VMDs, and PhDs; or at least BSs, not writers. also he was of an era where they didnt know about the cell, quite frankly he was ignorant on the subject. he is an artist, his talent was imagination, not knowledge and reason.

ghandi? im sorry, but a hindu, who is told from birth that all creatures are equal is probably more prone to agree with me then you seemed to think. unfortunately that agreement would be incidental as it is on the basis of faith, which is literally the belief in something without any evidence, also called delusional.
religion is not something to should ever be cited except possibly to disprove itself. it was a crutch used to try and understand the world. now it is no longer needed, a vestigial structure that persists in some weaker-minded people who need the extra support of being told they are gods special little worker bee. "There is no God, Nature sufficeth unto herself; in no wise hath she need of an author."

if we are another organism in the kingdom animalia, then you are just biochemistry. if we are something more, you bear the burden of proof. find and isolate that extra part.

Shakespeare's poetry and plays far more accuracy portrays the illogical behavior/reasoning of human emotions in regards to love and attraction than any scientific data ever has. Sexuality in general is far more complex than you rationalize it to be.