"Bisexual Ethics"

[proseros]

This-for all intent and purpose-became the development of a thesis, working backwards from a lot of collation on the matter of "bisexuality and ethics" that never quite found a proper preface. And in approaching an introduction became evident, it is the language of bisexual ethics, the terminology and therefore proper way of thinking that has always been missing, because excluded from the 'language' of science and religon. There just is no place for inclusion except with conventions of convenience, exclusions of scientific and religous logic which fail to explain bisexuality as anything but impossibility and perversion. This draft is an attempt to turn that logic on its head and standardize a system of ethics qualifying bisexuality as a seperate entity [gender, if you will-although I do not agree this is a proper term] consistent with science and religon.

I'm counting on all you mathematicians, psychologists, sociologists, scientists and religonists, and evolutionists, and physicians and physicists to un-learn and re-learn and re-write bisexuality backinto the book.

May be randomly updated or appear as relative essay as time develops. Portions may also appear where cited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I've actually gotten tired of writing these profiles/ads.What ever you want to call them. That I do it anyway, once again is very other-worldly when you consider why I should need to at all. So I'm not getting into the whole web-o-graphic eye-candy thing here to try and paint a picture of myself for anyone that isn't who I expect anyone else to be.
"Bi-sexuality" is nothing to do with sex. It's not how I like sex, or how you like sex, or whether I'm bottom/top/verse, or what I or you are n2. It's not what's on television, and it is NOT what the gay community says about it. BI-sexuals are hetrogeneous. Homosexuals, are not. So I've gotten tired of explaining what "co-operative" and "surrogate" mean. Tired of being an off-season commercial for the masses of the filthy, the obsessed, the "curious" the casual and uncommitted to their creed and craft. Tired of explaining that my capacity to be intimate with either gender is NOT a by-product of libido. Libido is a heterogenous function of libido-Or it is not.

Bisexuality is Heterogenous.
Homosexuality is Homogenous.

I am NOT "gay".

The gay population may actually be quite small as long as noone has been forced to take a position. What gets in the way is the habit of convenience, if lucky to have survived one conviction or another, stays put, and adapts. After awhile, seems to become a thing itself.

I can't be gay.
I can't be straight and not gay.
Let's be gay.

The rest is history. And it really is his story. She has never really been a consideration except for his position in the matter.
Not heterogenous.

I prefer cooperation. Surrogation is fine, though may also be a habit of convenience; we can always learn what we have not gotten used to. It is a matter of the heart, not the hips. Polarity finds in its center- Syncreticism and synthesis.

That we can agree for the long haul, I blame the exclusions of science and religon we cannot get along, and has gotten the World turned on its head and willy nilly and stupid.

"Gay" is convenient. Easily explained.
"Straight" is convenient. Easily explained.

"Bisexual" is complicated. Inexplicable and therefore impossible and perverse.
Not heterogenous.

I am NOT "straight".

Gay science = Straight religon [impossible and perverse]
Straight science = Gay religon [impossible and perverse]

NOT heterogenous.
Conveniences of Science and Religon exclude Heterogeneity.
Syncreticism and Synthesis.Cooperation. Surrogation.

I am BISEXUAL.

Now-If I can find myself one man and one woman, or two women,or two men and two women who understand this, then maybe we can start something. I cannot be more spiritually honest or riteously real than that. Beyond this, I'm just a stranger in the same World as you.

[proseros]

CORRECTION:

The line in the second paragraph which reads:


Libido is a heterogenous function of libido-Or it is not.

Should read:


Libido is a heterogenous function of Bisexuality-Or it is not.

[void()]

Make it concise, please. Not sure if this what you are exactly attempting to express or not, merely what I observe of what you've written, in summarized format.

Science and religion are xenophobic in relationship to bisexuality yet court favor with heterosexuality and homosexuality. This may be explained via the ease of objectifying heterosexuality and homosexuality, and the difficulty of objectifying bisexuality.


If that is 'about' what you are trying to say, then please do hook it into Ethics soon. This really doesn't tell me anything, evoke caring or any emotion save a blank, 'um, yeah ... duh.'

Not trying to be snide or detracting. Merely fussing with an internal editor, reading, dealing with life. Your title suggested a cannon of rule listings to me. As in;

1. As a bisexual you needn't wear a billboard proclaiming yourself as such
2. You should expect equality from the world at large

and so on. Unfortunately this doesn't seem the direction your thesis or vignette is converging upon. Baiting and switching with readers is only fair if you establish it upfront, like mystery novels do. Please be concise and fair. Some readers appreciate that, still.

Then again, you are free to dismiss all I say. Ben ambulates off to the his new professor's office.

[proseros]

Make it concise, please. Not sure if this what you are exactly attempting to express or not, merely what I observe of what you've written, in summarized format.

Science and religion are xenophobic in relationship to bisexuality yet court favor with heterosexuality and homosexuality. This may be explained via the ease of objectifying heterosexuality and homosexuality, and the difficulty of objectifying bisexuality.


If that is 'about' what you are trying to say, then please do hook it into Ethics soon. This really doesn't tell me anything, evoke caring or any emotion save a blank, 'um, yeah ... duh.'

Not trying to be snide or detracting. Merely fussing with an internal editor, reading, dealing with life. Your title suggested a cannon of rule listings to me. As in;

1. As a bisexual you needn't wear a billboard proclaiming yourself as such
2. You should expect equality from the world at large

and so on. Unfortunately this doesn't seem the direction your thesis or vignette is converging upon. Baiting and switching with readers is only fair if you establish it upfront, like mystery novels do. Please be concise and fair. Some readers appreciate that, still.

Then again, you are free to dismiss all I say. Ben ambulates off to the his new professor's office.

No no not at all! It is exactly the point of the kind of discussion approached-The very fact that your expectations were in fact culled from title. Perhaps some will have to go over the "ether" this sits in as a preface for an argument for the development of the canon rules we're trying to define [as bisexuals].

This whole business is presented in camera; a position bisexuals find themselves in when offering any genuine profile of their social and ethical identity-In terms only defined by and exclusions of heterogeny; the synthesis and syncreticism bisexual relationships in many cases require, in most cases ethically demand. And which remains undefined by bisexuals themselves, except in the unacceptable grey area of "impossibility therefore perversity", where neither community, family, culture, love, compassion, morale, or ethics apply.

Bisexuality then only exists as an ambiguous whim and since it has no objective substance other than "sex", adapts, by habit, a position:



I can't be gay.
I can't be straight and not gay.
Let's be gay.


All title, no substance. NOT hetrogenous thinking. So the habit of adaptation-opposed to actual identity-is one to be rebuked ethically. That is not the responsibility of science or religon, but the responsibility of every single person who identifies with the title. If you have no language to explain that the identity then you may fit any matter into the pidgeon-hole and call it what you want. You can call bisexuality "gay" but you can't call it "straight' because it is not opposed to the absolute bias.

We always have to explain that we are hetrogenous beings unbound by such inefficient and incomplete [and therefore impossible] "language". The inherant diversities are not given any rhyme or reason and so are labeled one thing or another-neither of which is useful in explaining this kind of identity(You so BEAUTIFULLY RESPONDED! I COULD KISS YOU RIGHT NOW!).

This would account for comlpletely un-learning and re-writing human development and behavior as we know it. Not with expectations defined by titles, but REAL human behavioral and developmental FACTS that include community, culture, love, compassion, morale, and ethics.

Ethics most importantly, since the World is turned on its ear and unable to surrender the language it uses to explain itself to begin with, and once again, out of habit, has adapted but never co-opted. So society, without inclusive ethics, goes inverse, to perverse. Our science has taught us that "gay" is scientifically explicable [as tolerably co-existent with the rest of the world as germs and viruses and vermin] and that "straight" is non-negotiable-and how long have we known that this is bullshit from the day we are born?

We explain everything with libido. With sex. With perversity, or exclusion.

cont...

[void()]

So, you discount a possibility of someone loving two different people equally and unconditionally? You appear to be saying this is is either an impossibility or perverse.

Ah, think I got it now, you're emphasizing that we can not define that due to not having a language for it. And since we can not define it, it may be anything.

Or simply put, Truth is what each makes it. Hm, reminds me of something I was dabbling with moons ago.

Being is:

Perception - You gather input
Awareness - You realize this gathering
Knowledge - Input becomes a library
Wisdom - You apply knowledge

In between you've gestures, or actions. Everyone shares a residual library of perceptions. This goes toward building our shared reality.

That residual library can be referred to as the Cabal. Science has proven out muscle memory being relevant to repetitive tasks, the mind / psyche also has its own 'muscle memory'. What does this have to do with your context?

I understand your context from a different 'frame' of reference, almost Malthusian this frame be. And what I grasp is you being correct. We do not have the words capable of expressing it all. Then again, I often gripe words only get in the way.

Also see my question above. Think I manage words well enough to nail it. Although, I understand your point of 'having to keep explaining'. Yes it grows quite frustrating and tiresome. Pitch it all out as rubbish you say?

Only if you may answer the following.

Where did words originate? And I'm not inferring their first use as script, pictures. I am aiming at the idea of words. We once used grunts and throat clearing. How did we get to words? Who decided two grunts meant yes, or no? Where did the 'standard' come from? See, I think that is in itself an awfully huge leap right there, and purely amazing at that. "It came to pass..." "Oh yeah? How so?"

Forgive a bit of aloof folly mashed with seriousness. But, no we ought not throw out the baby in the bath water. You see we've no grasp how the baby even arrived, much less whence it goes. But suddenly, poof, there are words!

And babies always intrigue, especially those who coddle them. So, throw it all out? Aren't you a cheeky one. :)

[bisexualman]

Ah a depth conversation . . . I like it! I too am tired of trying to explain myself when neither polarity- homosexual nor heterosexual- really explains the whole me. I was struck by the statement: (I am paraphrasing) 'I am heterogeneous and therefore possibly attracted to either sex.' But even that isn't quite right. Perhaps "Bisexuality is the capacity to form a relationship of depth with another human being, regardless of sexual orientation."
Of course I am a person who has a strong libido, and though I am in a committed relationship, I have a deep primal urge to be with a man from time to time. Yet my libido is only one part of me and does not define my full relationship to the the partner I am committed to. I agree my libido does not define me as bisexual but it plays a part in it.
Thoughts?

[still_shy]

Of course I am a person who has a strong libido, and though I am in a committed relationship, I have a deep primal urge to be with a man from time to time. Yet my libido is only one part of me and does not define my full relationship to the the partner I am committed to. I agree my libido does not define me as bisexual but it plays a part in it.
Thoughts?

Is it your libido or just a natural part of you that needs to be expressed from time to time? I am completely satisfied with my husband, love him dearly but occasionally I have the overwhelming urge to be with a woman. It drives me insane but I don't necessarily blame it on my libido. Generally I have a very low libido due to antidepressants. I consider it a natural occurence, something that will crop up once a month or so, because I'm bisexual, not because I"m horny. I'm sure that this is a pretty simplistic view. Just the way I see it in my life though.

[proseros]

Except, as we mention at the beginning, we are not necessarily addressing any issue that concerns "urges' or "libido" and in fact do not wish to use that languange to define or explain bisexuality. It is not heterogenous thinking, since it concerns only sex-bringing us back to "impossibility and perversion". Wherein the fundamental problem arises, that the only language available to explain bisesuality as an identity is adapted from "gay" and "straight" nomenclature and moors, which have nothing to do with the ethics of either because, once again, "impossible and perverse". And as long as identity is defined by the welling of primal urges will always be deemed so, worse, will otherwise continue to follow the course of adaptation by habit, which excludes and consideration of community, culture, love, compassion, morale, and ethics.

Bisexuality = "An ambiguous whim driven by sexual urges, without consideration of homogenous identity or preference."

Then necessary to develop a language to explain that the reverse is true by the inclusion of hetrogenous thinking, homogeneity is turned on its ear with respect of the human condition itself. Bisexuality has NOTHING to do with sexual preference or urge. Everyone has that. Sexual preference is no more than that-preference and urge, and is always accommodated in one way or another as long as indulgence prevails. Because of a lack of cultivation of a language of ethics, is viewed and approached-with bisexuals themselves-only through adaptation in society at large. The "ethical" roles of intimacy, domestication, love, family, culture, community, etc. between genders is repressively adapted within the parameters of polarized conventions which do not meet the requirements of an inclusive holistic identity; themselves impossible and perverse because based on such conventions as prohibit or exclude behavior or thinking inconsistent with one identity or another.

Bisexuals then fall into the habit of "explaining"-and by explaining is intended to imply how expressed in the world at large-themselves in tems of sexual urges or preferences with little or no ethical language to explain the availability of types of heterogenous diversity beyond compatible gratification of urges and suitable preference [Reduced to and built on the debaucherous lead-"What RU N2?"].

Bisexual socialization and culturalization for instance, does not have a language of ethics that include co-operative family or surrogate espousal-Or has any rules of communion that properly regards the social, emotional, spiritual, psychological and even sexual ethics that define the parameters of bisexualism. Again the world is turned upside down, since it is locked into homogenous thinking and acting according to the ethics of polarized impossibilities ("gay" or "straight") which make no difference-or sense-in a bisexual world.

cont...