On Topic Discussion What do you think about bisexuals?

[LuckysRevenge]

I think, and you may not agree, that there is a difference between "a dude is into chicks" and "his attraction towards chicks is overpowered by his attraction towards men on several orders of magnitude, and will never voluntarily act on the much weaker attraction." I don't believe straight is requisite 0.00 attraction towards same gender and that gay is requisite 0.00 attraction towards opposite gender. That's more of that Kinsey scale nonsense addressed earlier in the thread.



That is pretty much what I've been saying all along.



I don't call myself a seafood eater. Although I can chew and swallow it, I prefer pretty much any non-seafood item on a given restaurant menu, and eat it only when I can't politely get out of it. It doesn't make me sick, some of it tastes okay, and once in awhile I might get a little craving for shrimp cocktail or something, but my preference for it is so small that I would literally never order it when there's almost any other option and the choice is mine. I don't go around calling myself a big seafood eater. I don't feel that I am lying to anyone by saying that I am not.

Within this analogy, I'm talking about the people who loudly insist they're seafood eaters and not only do they never order it, but they seem to avoid restaurants that serve it at all. They then call you a foodie elitist and tell you to go back to yelp if you question their status as a seafood eater.



The reason you don't really fit the discussion is because you identify as gay. But on the topic we were discussing, I think the area of conflict is whether your "occasional fantasies", which you don't even know if you'd enjoy were you to act on them, makes you bisexual. According to some here, it does. I would be in the camp saying that if your drive for women was strong enough to place you as a bisexual, you probably would have found some chance to actually act on it, especially considering that dating men only is definitely the harder path in our society-- not just as far as social perception, but as far as the logistics of actually finding partners.

So what does bisexual mean then? Is it not sexually responsive to both sexes?
We're now making distinctions between identity, orientation and preference.
According to you, sexual identity should be defined by preference and not orientation.

I think it's silly to decide that a persons identity should be defined by one's actions and known inclinations. Mainly because I think it's silly to decide what a person should identify as at all. You don't know a particular person's life circumstances or thoughts and there's a certain level of arrogance when we stay that we know you better than you know yourself.

That's just my opinion.

 

[Kahaih]

So what does bisexual mean then? Is it not sexually responsive to both sexes?
We're now making distinctions between identity, orientation and preference.
According to you, sexual identity should be defined by preference and not orientation.

I think it's silly to decide that a persons identity should be defined by one's actions and known inclinations. Mainly because I think it's silly to decide what a person should identify as at all. You don't know a particular person's life circumstances or thoughts and there's a certain level of arrogance when we stay that we know you better than you know yourself.

That's just my opinion.

This sort of comment always amuses me.

It seems to have become quite popular for individuals to self-diagnose/self-label as bi-polar, autistic, dyslexic, on and on and on . . . (Thanks, Oprah and the likes). Should we believe them, or would it be better to tell them that they might not know/understand what they are talking about/telling us?

 

[LuckysRevenge]

This sort of comment always amuses me.

It seems to have become quite popular for individuals to self-diagnose/self-label as bi-polar, autistic, dyslexic, on and on and on . . . (Thanks, Oprah and the likes). Should we believe them, or would it be better to tell them that they might not know/understand what they are talking about/telling us?

How is a mental condition the same as or similar to sexual attraction?

That's like saying my favorite color is blue, and then you telling me my favorite color is purple because of if have lot of things in my possession that are purple.

 

[Kahaih]

How is a mental condition the same as or similar to sexual attraction?

That's like saying my favorite color is blue, and then you telling me my favorite color is purple because of if have lot of things in my possession that are purple.

Sexual attraction (orientation) is mental – happens in the mind – a mental condition.

But, my point was more about people using labels they don't understand and/or not understanding what is going on in their own head – where someone 'looking in from the outside' might get a better picture.

 

[bankside]

That's like saying my favorite color is blue, and then you telling me my favorite color is purple because of if have lot of things in my possession that are purple.

From what you've said, it's you telling us your favourite colour is purple, but that you just tell people it is blue because that is easier for them to understand. Well, your favourite colour is purple...

Sexual attraction (orientation) is mental – happens in the mind – a mental condition.

But, my point was more about people using labels they don't understand and/or not understanding what is going on in their own head – where someone 'looking in from the outside' might get a better picture.

...it may well happen in the olfactory bulbs, actually.


But I agree with you about labels.

 

[LuckysRevenge]

From what you've said, it's you telling us your favourite colour is purple, but that you just tell people it is blue because that is easier for them to understand. Well, your favourite colour is purple...



...it may well happen in the olfactory bulbs, actually.


But I agree with you about labels.

What I'm saying is that some days I prefer blue. Some days I prefer purple.

If most days I prefer blue, I think it's not a lie to say my favorite color is blue.

 

[xbuzzerx]

So what does bisexual mean then? Is it not sexually responsive to both sexes?
We're now making distinctions between identity, orientation and preference.
According to you, sexual identity should be defined by preference and not orientation.

If one preference is so much stronger that the other manifests only in passing fantasies from time to time which are never acted on, then yes.

 

[xbuzzerx]

How is a mental condition the same as or similar to sexual attraction?

That's like saying my favorite color is blue, and then you telling me my favorite color is purple because of if have lot of things in my possession that are purple.

I think sexual attraction is a strong biological impulse that the vast majority of humans act upon.

If other social, physical or emotional issues are not preventing you from pursuing dating, relationships or sex, and you are only pursuing one gender with the occasional internal fantasy towards the other, how is that bisexuality other than in theory? And how is it bisexuality in a way that wouldn't also apply to many gay men?

 

[Kulindahr]

Soooo, you responded to the unimportant part of my post, YET AGAIN failed to address why a bisexual man would EVER make the choice to not pursue women in a heteronormative society, AND thoroughly ignored my giant post that came before these small ones you answered to.

I have to conclude that you have no interest in the actual conversation and will just continue to cherry-pick the small things you actually can be condescendingly snappy about.

Disappointing.

Motivations are irrelevant. I don't address irrelevant points except to point out that they're irrelevant, which I've already done.

People don't choose who they fall in love with. There are rare straight guys who fall in love with their best friend, a matter addressed very nicely in the story Watching Brad in the story forum, and one reported in the news recently.

And yes, I didn't respond to your giant post, because it built on fallacious reasoning. You're still arguing that 20 = 0 and 15 = 0.

The core of your argument is that any attraction less than the level you've arbitrarily picked isn't actually attraction. That's the core of your position, and it shows that you know nothing of objective thinking. Until you get objective, there's no "conversation" in the first place, just you sounding off on your personal opinions.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am with bankside on this. If your identity doesn't match your actual orientation, your identity is misleading to anyone who isn't YOU and doesn't know all the nuance happening in your head.

No, you're not with bankside. I said this:

So in your world, 1% = 0, 10% = 0, 20% = 0.

If it's zero, it's zero. If it's 10%, it's ten percent. The percentage means the desire.

So you're not using "simple English", you're just expressing a prejudice about how you think bi people should just forget that they're bi and be gay.

In response to which he said:

Well said.

You keep arguing that a person's orientation isn't his orientation unless it passes a certain threshold you've picked subjectively. I said that was idiocy, and bankside agreed. So you are most certainly not arguing for honesty in identity, you're arguing that bi people should lie, adopting an identity that does not match their orientation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not nearly the same thing. There's a huge difference between subtypes of something you are already known to like, and completely separate types. Relationships are based on the understanding of mutual attraction between the people in them, and that lies on their gender attraction.

Not that I agree with any of Kuli's purely theoretic statements here, or believe they match any reality I or HE live in, but to clarify that your comparison is just not accurate.

OMG

I haven't said anything theoretical -- all I'm doing is saying that 80/20 means 80/20, whereas you say it means 100/0. Until you get rational this is pointless.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think that's ridiculous. My sexuality feels fluid. Some days I'm really into women. Some days I'm not that into women. I've never had sex with a woman. I don't know if I ever will. I would like to, but I haven't. I don't find older men attractive. I find older women attractive.
I identify as gay. I don't know my sexual orientation but I know I like men. I don't know how id feel having sex with one so I don't know if I'm bi.

Am I lying? Does my bf need to know everything happening in my head? Because it changes from one day to the next.

Your BF doesn't need to know "everything" -- what you said here is sufficient.

 

[Kulindahr]

So if someone is a 80/20 attraction to men/women does he identify as bi?

If he's honest, yes.

Sexual identity is more social and cultural than scientific. There are a lot of GAY men who would have sex with women. Does that mean they are lying? They prefer men and they identify as gay.

"Would" covers a lot of territory. If these men are having sex with women because women turn them on, then they're bi. If they're doing it to as a favor to a friend, probably they're gay.

 

[Kulindahr]

So what does bisexual mean then? Is it not sexually responsive to both sexes?
We're now making distinctions between identity, orientation and preference.
According to you, sexual identity should be defined by preference and not orientation.

I think it's silly to decide that a persons identity should be defined by one's actions and known inclinations. Mainly because I think it's silly to decide what a person should identify as at all. You don't know a particular person's life circumstances or thoughts and there's a certain level of arrogance when we stay that we know you better than you know yourself.

That's just my opinion.

Bisexual means you're attracted to, i.e. turned on by, at least some of the male population and some of the female population. That's the scientific aspect of it: your actual orientation.

Identity is more subjective; it involves both attraction/desire and choice. But if you identify as gay, yet still get turned on by at least some gals, then your orientation is bi, and honesty dictates telling your BF.

Unless you're doing science, then labels generally serve to confuse as much as identify. I rarely actually tell someone I'm bi; rather, I'm just honest about my attractions.

One reason labels serve to confuse is that they reduce complexity to something overly simplistic. For example, the number of gals I would have sex with if they asked is substantially larger than the number I would put any effort into pursuing -- the same, BTW, is true of my reaction to guys. And they wrongly assume (e.g. Rolyo) that a person's sexuality can be plotted as a point on a line; the reality is that a person's sexuality is a volume in a multi-dimensional space, and desire/attraction a point that moves within that volume over time.

 

[TX-Beau]

I had sex with women - to prove I could do it, to camouflage my deep, deep need for cock, and to fit in with my peer group.

I'm seriously gay, like the biggest faggot on the planet kind of gay. Theoretically, that makes me bisexual!

Ahhhh the battle between the theoretical bisexual and the functional bisexual. Theoretically if you've ever even fantasized about the same gender, let alone got a drunken hummer from some predatory frat boy in college, you are a bisexual! Functionally if you only fuck twat, you're not bi, even if you sometimes wish your wife could deep-throat just like Brother Trevor could.

I fall on the functional definition side - because I'm that self centered and only care what you call yourself in reference to how likely that makes getting into your pants. Theoretical Bisexuals generally don't put out!

But y'all are missing an orientation - I call it "horny opportunist." That's the guy who Brother Trevor converted in college who will never touch you, and never kiss you, and not for all the cash in the world "date," you, but is happy to nut down your throat while calling you faggot. He's not a Bisexual either - I wonder if there's a lesbian equivalent?

 

[Rolyo85]

I am still waiting to hear about the reasons for why a guy who totes loves girls would "choose" to only do guys. Kuli is the expert in all things bisexual, so he must know.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You keep arguing that a person's orientation isn't his orientation unless it passes a certain threshold you've picked subjectively. I said that was idiocy, and bankside agreed. So you are most certainly not arguing for honesty in identity, you're arguing that bi people should lie, adopting an identity that does not match their orientation.

For me the threshold isn't subjective. It's whatever is required to be strong enough to actually act on. It's about what you feel biologically directed to do: not about what you "might be open to doing, possibly, if the right kind of situation fell into your lap." That's why all this numbers/percentages nonsense is just for the sake of discussion.

When people date only one gender all the time... they are showing you what they are biologically driven towards.

Straight guys and straight girls feeling hints of tiny, fleeting crushes on same-gender friends doesn't make all of them bi, to me. Nor do their confessions that they might have thought about it here and there. My series of minor crushes on female teachers up to and including high school didn't make me bi either, because the attraction wasn't strong enough to ever leave the realm of theoretical fantasy.

On the various parameters offered, most of them incredibly broad and simply a matter of interpretive and theoretical wiggle room, I could claim bisexuality and I imagine many gay men could, and a huge number of straight people. Now what you're saying is that everyone with occasional what-if fantasies or passing thoughts is actually lying to themselves and others about their bisexuality?

 

[Kulindahr]

Sexual attraction (orientation) is mental – happens in the mind – a mental condition.

But, my point was more about people using labels they don't understand and/or not understanding what is going on in their own head – where someone 'looking in from the outside' might get a better picture.

I think that what happens in the mind is a gestalt of hormones, learning, and environment. Saying it happens in the mind is too simple.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think sexual attraction is a strong biological impulse that the vast majority of humans act upon.

If other social, physical or emotional issues are not preventing you from pursuing dating, relationships or sex, and you are only pursuing one gender with the occasional internal fantasy towards the other, how is that bisexuality other than in theory? And how is it bisexuality in a way that wouldn't also apply to many gay men?

I'm having trouble with the concept of fantasizing about something you'd never do.

 

[Rolyo85]

For me the threshold isn't subjective. It's whatever is required to be strong enough to actually act on. It's about what you feel biologically directed to do: not about what you "might be open to doing, possibly, if the right kind of situation fell into your lap." That's why all this numbers/percentages nonsense is just for the sake of discussion.

This. All the numbers are meaningless, but the threshold is most definitely not. If you would never feel the need to actually act on an attraction, it remains theoretical, and therefore not really a part of any identity.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm having trouble with the concept of fantasizing about something you'd never do.

Seriously?

Wait, you really posted this?