We're not acknowledged

[DogoJosho]

I realized something....
Even though we (bisexuals) are in the title LGBT, no one else ever really acknowledges us. I mean some do but some don't know at all about bis, they just say "Your either gay or straight"

Now why I'm posting this is I wanna see your views on this. Why do you think they do that? Why do people not acknowledge us?
Let me know what ya think.
-Josh

[transcendMental]

Not only are the transgendered (the T in LGBT) not acknowledged, but few (including some in the LGBT communicty) even know what the T stands for, let alone differentiate gender issues from issues of sexuality.

In both cases (B and T), it is a matter that people are underinformed, and when people lack knowledge, their first attempt is to try to force things into a binary system (for example George Bush's good vs. evil). Since they know what "gay" means, then "LGBT" to them becomes a symbol for "gay" (not straight). They can't understand that we are not just one spectrum, but two (gender and sexuality), because they are having enough trouble with "gay" to have a chance of understanding that the notion of "spectrum" is even possible.

tm

[void()]

Excellently spoken, trans. Really nothing much further to add except uniformed or uneducated people get trapped by fear, easily. "If it's different, be very afraid, label it, hate it." Seems to be the way the cycle works, and it doesn't matter if they get it wrong or right. This is a great barrier which ought not exists but does. Often it appears fatalistic to say there is no change. There isn't though, at least not directly all across the board. We make headway individually, little drops forming streams and washing a mountain away bit by bit.

But at times it is frustrating to feel that gets us no where. And it makes you ask, "why must we wait for change to remove that which needn't be?" Look at the straights. They don't wait for nothing do they? No, more than likely it's instantaneous to grab the pitchforks and torches to go roast some queer, lesbian, trans-gendered ... "oh fuck sake, they're just freaks!"

Sure we are, baby. Remember that as we teach your children, coach their little league teams, defend your country and rights, take care of your infirmed. We're everywhere but nowhere. We're you, me and your father, sister and so on. See? That's the trouble honey, you don't know us one whit at all. And yeah, maybe you should fear what you don't know. We are freaks, after all, just like you.

[citystyleguy]

...personally, i can't stand the title, typical of the general populace in wanting labels to identify '...other types...', and then bunch them all together in order to confuse.

i can understand your question, and by your postings #'s at least new to forum postings, this is probably in the top 3 questions, at least one a day or so. other than the bother of maintainence, this site could use an archive, but who to assign task!:rolleyes:

in general, for what unfathomable reason, many peeps need to have life's untidy bits clearly marked and labeled; if you have read any of my postings, i am a holder of the belief it is all los, and nothing more; small minds with nothing better to do, then mark others separate.

i am a member of mainstream society, i am a guy, and i am bisexual, and in a nutshell, for singular definitive means, a part of the crowd, so be careful, i may be living next to you!:eek:

gotta go for now, maybe more later!

[tenni]

I think that there may be several questions that need to be asked before I/you may deal with being acknowledged by the GLBT group.
A few questions for me are:
Do I want to belong to this group?
What benefit is there for me to belong to a group like this?
What do I/we want to have acknowledged about bisexuality?
Can this GLBT group really help accomplish this?

Since bisexuals are across a wide spectrum of sexuality and how we chose to live, I'm not sure that such a wider group really will help. As stated, politically it focuses on same sex relationships from a gay perspective. In some countries it is struggling to accomplish some equality rights but they may be centred more on same sex issues. Those that may see a benefit may feel more affiliation with the GLBT than others.

Personally, I do not identify with the GLBT community. I don't want to belong. Maybe, one day, someone will convince me that it would benefit me. No one has so far.

I identify much more with the artistic community than the GLBT or mainstream. GLBT people are in the artistic community...go figure...so are straights. In the artistic community, no one would dare put down a GL person....too damaging to your career. I'm not sure about Transpeople. Everyone is trying to belong to some minority within the artistic community...lol You get more grants and more acknowledgement if you do...lol However, I don't think that there is a preference for bisexuals amongst, the indigenous, GLT, physically disabled etc. grant category formats. psst..still have to be a damn good artist though.

DAmn...maybe we do need our own special ed bus...;)

[just4mefc]

To repeat myself, I think we are all born Bisexual as a species and the nurture of life forces us to the extremes of gay OR str8.

The gay movement needs to be accepted. Non str8's have been persecuted for as long as anyone can remember. They don't acknowledge "bi" because they see bi's as representing choice. However, that undermines the point "it is not our fault we were born this way" this has proven to be a strong political stance. They include T and B as acknowledgment of being queer to the str8 standard and need us for political clout. Lets face it in light of the lack of freedoms and potential for personal harm that all non str8s face, this is a very necessary alliance!

Str8's reassure themselves the "gays" were born like that, poor them. Glad it ain't me. They see "bi" as a choice and since we choose to be bi we must be freaks or at best in denial. Of course if we chose to be "bi" as they see it, they fear they might do the same thing.

Both groups seem vested in "born that way, not a choice" argument. In my view on some level the extremes of str8 and gay are the ones who "chose" their options. I don't mean choice as in I woke up one day and said hey I want to be gay or str8. I really mean nurtured to be str8 or gay. To clarify even more Nurture as in Nature or Nurture, not as in provide a loving environment.

Just my view :)

[Pasadenacpl2]

Being Bisexual does not belie the 'born this way' argument, at all. One does not choose to be bisexual. It is a legitimate sexual orientation that has all the earmarks of homosexual or heterosexual in regards to it being not anyone's 'fault.'

Yes, bisexuals can make choices. But, it is not a choice to have sex with men, or have sex with women and to be exclusively one or the other. We have the ability to truly live out the phrase: Love Is, regardless of gender.

Pasa

[just4mefc]

Being Bisexual does not belie the 'born this way' argument, at all. One does not choose to be bisexual. It is a legitimate sexual orientation that has all the earmarks of homosexual or heterosexual in regards to it being not anyone's 'fault.'

Yes, bisexuals can make choices. But, it is not a choice to have sex with men, or have sex with women and to be exclusively one or the other. We have the ability to truly live out the phrase: Love Is, regardless of gender.

Pasa

That is my point. We are all BORN bisexual. But that does not make anyone happy. I was speaking to the perspective of the extreme ends of the scale. Orientation is far more complicated then who we have sex with. But that was not the question asked. The question is why do B and T seem to not really belong in the LGBT group.

[void()]

"We are all born bisexual as a species."

"Not every human being is born bisexual and most people are not. "

Oh wow. Interesting to see this on the forum finally, although there is some bit of hesitation in noting its arrival. On the face of it this looks like two separate and exclusive arguments. (Void grins.) *ahem* But ...

Not every and most are not, are in such a grammatical arrangement as to negate themselves and render the statement a positive. In essence the statement then concurs with the first statement. See the double negative rule, pay a bit more attention to it. Sorry if it seems I'm a jerk. Just keen on words and usage, can not help but to find meaning, analyze.

So, I guess we are all born bisexual via natural affinity?

I have seen similar argument posted elsewhere in public forums regarding Atheism. The logic backing it does appear valid. "We are all born neutral, atheistic until taught about religion / gods / God." Go on, ask an infant if they know God, or Allah. I'll wait. (Void smirks, chuckles.)

Meanwhile, I best scoot along. Interesting argument it seems, folks, but please try not to set the world alight. :)

[biinlou]

Well stated Trans. I do believe that we as bisexuals should strive for the creation of our own communities, both in electronic mediums and social venues. Of course while our "community of bisexuality" is welcome to all, we need the opportunity to create our own unique place and culture.


Biinlou

[Realist]

Personally, I don't care what labels anyone else uses. Each of us have our own personalities, characteristics, and idiosyncrasies. You may think what you will about me; I will think of myself as I see me. It will not irritate me, for you to put a label on me, but do not attempt to define me. I promise you that I fit in few definitions of any particular traits, or ideological definitions of the majority. I am a unique and independent individual, who feels I do not fit any single category, or niche. In that vein, I choose not to attempt to categorize others, or argue with their personal thoughts and deeds, unless they are hurting another person (s).

[just4mefc]

Personally, I don't care what labels anyone else uses. Each of us have our own personalities, characteristics, and idiosyncrasies. You may think what you will about me; I will think of myself as I see me. It will not irritate me, for you to put a label on me, but do not attempt to define me. I promise you that I fit in few definitions of any particular traits, or ideological definitions of the majority. I am a unique and independent individual, who feels I do not fit any single category, or niche. In that vein, I choose not to attempt to categorize others, or argue with their personal thoughts and deeds, unless they are hurting another person (s).

Perfectly said :) I too am "just me" I don't fit well into any single niche either. I am one of the various "me sexuals" on this site. I don't care what someone labels me nor do I label others.

[just4mefc]

Don't worry Void no war here. I knew when I posted my personal OPINION on why B and T don't seem to fit in the LGBT model I was open for attack from one of the extremist. I have been in many an argument over my view from both gay and str8 friends, both groups blast me. The concept makes them very uncomfortable. To them I usually quote Shakespeare "me thinks thou dost protest too much"

I will not answer directly to the tirade but I will respond in general. On the issue of "born bi" I am referring to the numerous animal studies that show bisexual sex practices among many species. Interestingly many acknowledged "bi" species are of the larger brain variety. Including Dolphins, monkeys and primates of all kinds. One example, Chimps are well documented for same sex encounters. Now this use of the word "bisexual" is based on sexual practices and of course NOT orientation. Since orientation is more of a self concept. But humans are primates and as such are very similar to all the other primates, we have sex for pleasure and procreation. We appear to be the only primate who has a need for "orientation as a self concept" but that is difficult to confirm. Chimps don't appear to have a need to classify their activity. They have multiple sexual partners both male and female. Really easy for them, have sex eat some food, run from the leopard, take a nap, raise the kids etc etc

This is the basis of my statement "we are all born bisexual" capable of having pleasure with same or opposite gender. A bj is fun regardless of the gender attached to the mouth.

Very similar to what Void says "I have seen similar argument posted elsewhere in public forums regarding Atheism. The logic backing it does appear valid. "We are all born neutral, atheistic until taught about religion / gods / God." Go on, ask an infant if they know God, or Allah. I'll wait. (Void smirks, chuckles.)"

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

But, But..I wanted to be a Get'Mo'Sexual.....*Trembling lip*
Bad Cat:bigrin:

[just4mefc]

But, But..I wanted to be a Get'Mo'Sexual.....*Trembling lip*
Bad Cat:bigrin:

Gurl you can be anything you want :bigrin:

[Annika L]

Don't worry Void no war here. I knew when I posted my personal OPINION on why B and T don't seem to fit in the LGBT model I was open for attack from one of the extremist. I have been in many an argument over my view from both gay and str8 friends, both groups blast me. The concept makes them very uncomfortable. To them I usually quote Shakespeare "me thinks thou dost protest too much"

I will not answer directly to the tirade but I will respond in general. On the issue of "born bi" I am referring to the numerous animal studies that show bisexual sex practices among many species. Interestingly many acknowledged "bi" species are of the larger brain variety. Including Dolphins, monkeys and primates of all kinds. One example, Chimps are well documented for same sex encounters. Now this use of the word "bisexual" is based on sexual practices and of course NOT orientation. Since orientation is more of a self concept. But humans are primates and as such are very similar to all the other primates, we have sex for pleasure and procreation. We appear to be the only primate who has a need for "orientation as a self concept" but that is difficult to confirm. Chimps don't appear to have a need to classify their activity. They have multiple sexual partners both male and female. Really easy for them, have sex eat some food, run from the leopard, take a nap, raise the kids etc etc

This is the basis of my statement "we are all born bisexual" capable of having pleasure with same or opposite gender. A bj is fun regardless of the gender attached to the mouth.

Very similar to what Void says "I have seen similar argument posted elsewhere in public forums regarding Atheism. The logic backing it does appear valid. "We are all born neutral, atheistic until taught about religion / gods / God." Go on, ask an infant if they know God, or Allah. I'll wait. (Void smirks, chuckles.)"

Just4me, I'd like to make sure I understand what you're positing here, because the statement "we are all born bisexual" can mean (at least) two things, depending on whom "we all" are understood to be.

I guess I assume you mean "all of us bisexuals are born bisexual", rather than "all of us humans are born bisexual"...am I reading that correctly?

I have no problem with an argument that says that bisexuals are born with a predisposition toward attraction to both sexes. You are right that homosexual and bisexual behavior has been observed in pretty much every species that we've studied that can be divided into sexes.

The other statement I have more trouble with. I have heard many arguments on this site that say that everybody is *born* bisexual...but only a few of us are sufficiently smart/enlightened/laid-back/open-minded/cool enough to realize it. I find these arguments extremely egocentric and self-serving. We've observed bisexual behavior in every species...but that doesn't mean that *every* creature of every species is bisexual! Of course we all want to think of ourselves as smart/enlightened/laid-back/open-minded/cool...but not all bisexuals are...I'm afraid some are just bi.

And tenni...it doesn't matter a bit to me whether I *want* to be part of the LGBT community...I'm bisexual, and therefore I am in it, because of how LGBT is defined. The question is whether the B (and/or T) presence in that group helps L&G people at our expense, or whether we all benefit and will stand together as an actual community to argue for one another's rights. It feels sometimes as though B (and T) are wanted members of the LGBT community when the L&G groups need numbers...bodies to stand at Pride marches, etc., ...but that as soon as it comes time to argue for rights or education, suddenly we become persona non grata...to weird for the public to handle. I think this is the frustration that the OP expresses in their post...I certainly feel this frustration at times.

But I also believe that increases in L&G rights help the public to be more accepting of L&G people, which in the long run (and to a lesser degree in the short term) helps the public to be more accepting of B people, and increases our chance of getting rights...same argument for T people...but I'm sorry to say that they will probably be later in getting acceptance and rights (but not the last, as Intersexed people (the I in LGBTI) are even further behind in public awareness, acceptance, and rights)...sadly, the cycle of who gets shit on does not seem to have an end in sight. :(

[just4mefc]

Just4me, I'd like to make sure I understand what you're positing here, because the statement "we are all born bisexual" can mean (at least) two things, depending on whom "we all" are understood to be.

I guess I assume you mean "all of us bisexuals are born bisexual", rather than "all of us humans are born bisexual"...am I reading that correctly?

I have no problem with an argument that says that bisexuals are born with a predisposition toward attraction to both sexes. You are right that homosexual and bisexual behavior has been observed in pretty much every species that we've studied that can be divided into sexes.

The other statement I have more trouble with. I have heard many arguments on this site that say that everybody is *born* bisexual...but only a few of us are sufficiently smart/enlightened/laid-back/open-minded/cool enough to realize it. I find these arguments extremely egocentric and self-serving. We've observed bisexual behavior in every species...but that doesn't mean that *every* creature of every species is bisexual! Of course we all want to think of ourselves as smart/enlightened/laid-back/open-minded/cool...but not all bisexuals are...I'm afraid some are just bi.

And tenni...it doesn't matter a bit to me whether I *want* to be part of the LGBT community...I'm bisexual, and therefore I am in it, because of how LGBT is defined. The question is whether the B (and/or T) presence in that group helps L&G people at our expense, or whether we all benefit and will stand together as an actual community to argue for one another's rights. It feels sometimes as though B (and T) are wanted members of the LGBT community when the L&G groups need numbers...bodies to stand at Pride marches, etc., ...but that as soon as it comes time to argue for rights or education, suddenly we become persona non grata...to weird for the public to handle. I think this is the frustration that the OP expresses in their post...I certainly feel this frustration at times.

But I also believe that increases in L&G rights help the public to be more accepting of L&G people, which in the long run (and to a lesser degree in the short term) helps the public to be more accepting of B people, and increases our chance of getting rights...same argument for T people...but I'm sorry to say that they will probably be later in getting acceptance and rights (but not the last, as Intersexed people (the I in LGBTI) are even further behind in public awareness, acceptance, and rights)...sadly, the cycle of who gets shit on does not seem to have an end in sight. :(

Hello Annika,

I am saying that all humans are born bisexual. Not in orientation but in our biological nature. True not all species have been witnessed to have same sex encounters, but all primates have. This is just my observation and assertion of the documented biology. I do not claim it is "the" answer nor the end to questions about "orientation". To me that is the beginning of the questions. You know me well enough by now to realize my questions and opinions are mostly from a scientific curiosity.

"I have heard many arguments on this site that say that everybody is *born* bisexual...but only a few of us are sufficiently smart/enlightened/laid-back/open-minded/cool enough to realize it. I find these arguments extremely egocentric and self-serving."

Agreed. Those are self serving statements and do boost the ego's of the believer. However, I only see this point as BIOLOGY of sexuality. We are all capable of having same sex pleasure. That biology has no more impact on my enlightenment then having brown hair. As I said in the last post only humans appear to have "orientation i.e. self concept" tied to sex and attraction. So the nurture is the interesting part. That is the part we try to figure out.

[Long Duck Dong]

I am inclined to agree to a certain point just4me.....

we are all born with the ability to be bisexual...thats the difference between the way we look at things....

it is a aspect of our that we are born with the ability, but like other aspects of humans, we develop differently...and thats where I tend to support lefurtogragher with their statement that you are seeing one aspect of things

the way I am looking at it..... is the average male is born with the * tools * that a male has..... but the emotional / mental makeup of a gay male, v's a bi male, v's a hetero male, v's a asexual male, is what can make the difference between people

the nature verses nuture issue is one that I generally laugh at.... cos it assumes that all people are carbon copies and its nature or nuture that decide what we are and become......

we are anything but carbon copies, so that makes any theory harder to prove or disprove....... unless you have a majority of test subjects that support theories....

I often wonder about the 3 major aspects of my life, the dysthimia, the bisexuality and the unusual chromosome makeup of me ( intersex )
if we are to remove the intersex or the dysthimia or both, I could be straight or gay or bisexual...so its hard to say what role they play in my life and sexuality.....if any.....

I openly admit that of the 3, I hate the bisexuality on a number of levels.... as it serves no real purpose in my life..... and honestly the majority of bisexuality focuses on who you fuck and get fucked by..... and for a person like me that is not sex driven.... its a pain in the ass more than a bonus...lol

so I am inclined to think that yes I was born with the ability to be bisexual at birth, but there may be other factors...... and that if I was on a island with gay males only, no females, its very possible that I may have never developed a bisexual aspect, but only a gay side....

we may never really know, without extreme study and testing lol

[djones]

I for one would like to take the B out of the LGBT group - they don't deserve us !

they need our numbers to give strength to their movement, but its always THEIR movement, and we don't really fit in as we aren't gay (and they need us to be for some reason).

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[tenni]

LOL..oh..Jonesy...you are so correct dude.:tongue:
.................................................. .................................................. ........
Annika
"And tenni...it doesn't matter a bit to me whether I *want* to be part of the LGBT community...I'm bisexual, and therefore I am in it, because of how LGBT is defined. The question is whether the B (and/or T) presence in that group helps L&G people at our expense, or whether we all benefit and will stand together as an actual community to argue for one another's rights. It feels sometimes as though B (and T) are wanted members of the LGBT community when the L&G groups need numbers...bodies to stand at Pride marches, etc., ...but that as soon as it comes time to argue for rights or education, suddenly we become persona non grata...to weird for the public to handle. I think this is the frustration that the OP expresses in their post...I certainly feel this frustration at times."


Actually, Annika, it is all about whether we want to belong to the GLBT group. You, personally, want to but what about the rest?

Of all of these four groups, the B get to decide if they want to "pass for white" the easiest. There is section of members on this site who believe that it is beneficial to be "publicly" bi and there is a section that says that it is no one else's business. It is the B who may live a hetero life to the maximum perception. There seem to be several on this site. They say that they are B. They are married to opposite gender. They are monogomous. Other than having a sexual attraction to the same sex they are just like every other hetero couple and they don't invite another person into their marriage bed. Unless, they "want" to identify with the GLBT group, it doesn't matter to them. Some say that they don't promote their bisexuality but if anyone asks they will tell them.

There are no consequences unless it is significant for your identity to say that you are a member of the GLBT group. If admitting to yourself that you are bi is all that you need then why be a member of the GLBT group? Nope, Annika it is all about choice for some Bi's.

So what does GLT have for us? Why should we identify or be a member publicly of their group? It may not be critical for us at all unless you are in a same sex relatioship. (gawd....I sound like bis that gays hate...lol)

How many bisexuals go to PRIDE events? There have been no (or almost no?) threads about PRIDE events at this time of year compared to what you might find on a site declaring itself GLBT. Some bis do post that they are active in the gay community and centres. They would be the ones to see a benefit.

Ok..just thought of one. If you are with a same sex lover and you are caught...well guys might get the crap beat out of them by rednecks if the rednecks are bigger. Eh..isn't that the same criteria if you are straight, by yourself and they call you a name/try to beat you up just for fun anyway though?

Maybe, it is bi's like me that make gays not want us in their group?
* you got a bad 'tude tenni ;)

[Long Duck Dong]

LOL..oh..Jonesy...you are so correct dude.:tongue:
.................................................. .................................................. ........
Annika
"And tenni...it doesn't matter a bit to me whether I *want* to be part of the LGBT community...I'm bisexual, and therefore I am in it, because of how LGBT is defined. The question is whether the B (and/or T) presence in that group helps L&G people at our expense, or whether we all benefit and will stand together as an actual community to argue for one another's rights. It feels sometimes as though B (and T) are wanted members of the LGBT community when the L&G groups need numbers...bodies to stand at Pride marches, etc., ...but that as soon as it comes time to argue for rights or education, suddenly we become persona non grata...to weird for the public to handle. I think this is the frustration that the OP expresses in their post...I certainly feel this frustration at times."


Actually, Annika, it is all about whether we want to belong to the GLBT group.

Of all of these four groups, the B get to decide if they want to "pass for white" the easiest. There is section of members on this site who believe that it is beneficial to be "publicly" bi and there is a section that says that it is no one else's business. It is the B who may live a hetero life to the maximum perception. There seem to be several on this site. They say that they are B. They are married to opposite gender. They are monogomous. Other than having a sexual attraction to the same sex they are just like every other hetero couple and they don't invite another person into their marriage bed. Unless, they "want" to identify with the GLBT group, it doesn't matter to them. Some say that they don't promote their bisexuality but if anyone asks they will tell them.

There are no consequences unless it is significant for your identity to say that you are a member of the GLBT group. If admitting to yourself that you are bi is all that you need then why be a member of the GLBT group? Nope, Annika it is all about choice for some Bi's.

So what does GLT have for us? Why should we identify or be a member publicly of their group? It may not be critical for us at all unless you are in a same sex relatioship. (gawd....I sound like bis that gays hate...lol)

How many bisexuals go to PRIDE events? There have been no (or almost no?) threads about PRIDE events at this time of year compared to what you might find on a site declaring itself GLBT. Some bis do post that they are active in the gay community and centres. They would be the ones to see a benefit.

you rise a lot of good points tenni......

I am one of the people that is in a monogamous relationship with a person of the opposite gender...... and in nz... I have the same rights as everybody else.... yet, before the civil union bill, the only right I lacked, was the right to marry a same sex partner..... that was something that was predominately a gay / les issue.....

however, a lot of gay and les people had no interest in getting married anyway..... so the lgbt rights movement in nz, never really gained any impetus...... and indeed, after the civil union law was passed, in a lot of places in nz, the lgbt movement went backwards cos they lacked any platform to protest about......

am I part of the lgbt community ??? yes and no... I id as bisexual, but I am in fact pansexual... yet I have a asexual lifestyle.... and of course I am about as popular as a pig farmer at a vegetarian conference.....lol

to me and being dead honest, often it appears to me that the bisexual community want something to rise their voices about.... and being bisexual is a good enuf reason to rise their voices..... yet... our only claim to fame, is who we sleep with......

the L&G community generally do not have the ability to be like chameleons in society.... so they need to unite for a stronger voice and presence.....as laws affect their lives, not just their bedrooms......

if the bisexual community was to stand alone, we really have no political agenda to crow about, and honestly our biggest issue ( based around what I see on the forums ) is that our partners do not always accept or allow bed sharing..... and thats not really the thing that the bisexual community are gonna preach about at a rally..... as all we would be saying is * yes, we can not be monogamous and nor should we be, we should be entitled to bed swapping *

[just4mefc]

LeFurtographer: So now I'm somehow an "extremist" just because I'm a gay man and because I don't agree with your theory about how you think every human is born or is bisexual? :rolleyes:

Who said that your being gay has anything do with my opinion on B and T in LGBT. Sounds like you have some kind of personal axe to grind there. The extremist comment was a general one, see I have been here awhile and I know some people have extreme reactions to posts and often attack the person because they don't like nor agree with the opinion. Hence the term extremist. So far based on that description, you qualify.

Myself and gay men and straight people are proof that you don't know what you're talking about with humans being born bisexual. Look at society, most people are heterosexual and they are not bisexual at all.

Statistically most people are str8 or gay that is true. But that is not what I am saying. I did not say all people are bisexual in their behavior nor in their orientation. Nor do I think nor say that all people are latent bisexual's. I guess you don't get the concept of nurture. Perhaps this will help, all babies play with their feces at some point, we nurture them to not do that and in fact most humans become disgusted with the very idea of playing with crap. This disgust was nurtured into them at such a young age, that they have no memory of having ever played with it in the first place. This does not mean people are latent poop players. Nor does the statement that being born bisexual means you are in fact bisexual. You say you are gay, well good for you I am certain if you say you are, then you are. I am making no attempt to challenge yours or anyone else orientation. Perhaps Orientation is another word you might struggle with my usage on, so here let me clear that up too...
APA statement on orientation:
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

See as I said in my other post to Annika, I fully acknowledge that orientation is a distinctively human trait. Much more complicated then just behavior.

Your theory does not make me uncomfortable it just shows how you're making stuff up and don't know anything about human sexuality. Do some animals including humans behave bisexually? Yes that's true but that does not make them all bisexual just because some of their species can do this. Some animals have been proven to be homosexual while the majority are not bisexual.

Interesting that there are proven homosexual species, curious as to how these yet to be named species procreate? Here look up Bonobo chimps our closest relatives. 100% bisexual. Also the term homosexual activity in research of animals is meant to mean same sex contact.

I'm sure you'll try to somehow argue that all gay men who have had sex with women and lesbians who have had sex with men are somehow really bisexual or that straight girls who pretend to be bisexual but are really straight and doing it for attention are bisexual but none of these people are bisexual.

Sorry wrong about me again. Actually I think people are people. Period. I have had more then a few fights by saying someone can have a sexual fetish for sucking cock and yet have a str8 orientation.

Is it possible to be bisexual, yes but it's also possible to be a gay man, lesbian, woman, or a heterosexual man or woman and all of us monosexuals are not bisexual and are never going to be and our biological makeup as humans and our sexual orientation is not that of bisexual.

Again orientation is separate from behavior. A persons orientation is their own. No one can tell them what it is or should be. In this, the world is filled with people of all orientations. Gay, str8 and a thousand shades of Bi.

I can understand if you are saying that all bisexuals are born bisexual as this makes sense. What you're saying about how all human beings even gay men, lesbians, and straight people of both genders being bisexual or born bisexual does not even make sense and neither does your whole nurture theory. I'm fine with being a gay man but most people at first when they discover that they are not like the majority of society which is heterosexual are not happy and there is nothing in their nurture, upbringing, environmental factors, or anything like that which somehow made them something other than heterosexual.

You appear to be saying you and all other people are merely a product of genetic code? I disagree but go ahead and prove me wrong. Lets see some actual data?

Thanks for posting what you did Annika. Even though I'm not bisexual there's nothing wrong with being a gay man, a lesbian, or a straight person. Who knew that I'd have a homophobic and heterophobic bisexual claim I'm somehow an extremist just because I'm a gay man and I don't agree with them that every human is born or somehow is bisexual? :rolleyes:

So because I say the science seems to say humans are born bisexual. I am now phobic? I might be wrong I might be right but you are the one jumping up and down and having a fit. LOL Very funny stuff though. I never did call YOU an extremist in my first reply but perhaps the world does revolve around you after all, I am calling you an extremist now. That has nothing to do with disagreeing with me and certainly has nothing to do with your being gay. Has everything to do with your EXTREME reaction and for adding all kinds of words I never said.

I see there is no point in getting into this with you. You already have your mind made up and are not even reading what I wrote. But what the hell one more try....

First off I couldn't careless if you are gay, bi or str8. I don't know you so I could not begin to know if you are personally an extremist of any kind or not. You did however attack me for my OPINION. I let it go at first and only responded in a general way. Now you go on the personal attack so I am responding the that attack. But I will say once more, where someone is at any given time in life in terms of ORIENTATION whether they be L,G,B or T, has nothing to do with how they were born in my opinion. Additionally whether we are all 100% nature, 100% nurture or some combo of both, once we reach the understanding of our personal orientation then we are who we are. We are Gay, Str8, Bi, Trans etc If you feel you are purely a product of your genetic code then good for you. But who cares if I am right or you are right? Does it matter? Your gay and I am bi and others are str8, regardless of how we got here we are all beautiful in this regard. Now can we just blow each other and move on ;)

[just4mefc]

....

it is a aspect of our that we are born with the ability, but like other aspects of humans, we develop differently...and thats where I tend to support lefurtogragher with their statement that you are seeing one aspect of things

the way I am looking at it..... is the average male is born with the * tools * that a male has..... but the emotional / mental makeup of a gay male, v's a bi male, v's a hetero male, v's a asexual male, is what can make the difference between people

I often wonder about the 3 major aspects of my life, the dysthimia, the bisexuality and the unusual chromosome makeup of me ( intersex )
if we are to remove the intersex or the dysthimia or both, I could be straight or gay or bisexual...so its hard to say what role they play in my life and sexuality.....if any.....

I openly admit that of the 3, I hate the bisexuality on a number of levels.... as it serves no real purpose in my life..... and honestly the majority of bisexuality focuses on who you fuck and get fucked by..... and for a person like me that is not sex driven.... its a pain in the ass more than a bonus...lol

so I am inclined to think that yes I was born with the ability to be bisexual at birth, but there may be other factors...... and that if I was on a island with gay males only, no females, its very possible that I may have never developed a bisexual aspect, but only a gay side....

we may never really know, without extreme study and testing lol

Where did I say anything other then this? There are many many aspects that lead to orientation, My only assertion is that we START, are born if you will from a neutral "bi" point. Then all kinds of things come into play. So I don't see where you agree with LeFur since I never said any of the other stuff. You and I as usual are more in agreement then in disagreement. You seem to be much more of a nurture guy to me? perhaps I read you wrong. As I said in my reply to Lefur I truly love the diversity of orientation. I understand it seems I am saying some grand insult to people and I have to find away to word this better in the future. My ultimate point is so what if it is choice, either nurture or out right choice even, it is a valid and fine choice regardless. So whether born this way or nurtured or conscious choice, it is all good.

[Long Duck Dong]

I wrote what I was saying, wrong..... lol......I was not calling you or lefur, wrong..... as I can see the merits of both sides and more

I already know that people will argue that we are not bisexual enabled from birth, but there is no way to say that without having the ability to * test * for sexuality at birth.......and therefore no way to disprove the opinion that we are born bisexual..... and frankly, it makes more sense to say that, than say that sexuality only shows up when we are sexually aroused / attracted to a gender.....

I did write a thread in the site once about how friendship with people of both genders can be a sign of platonic bisexual traits and man did I get ripped into for it.....
apparently, friendships are not a aspect of sexuality, and have no attraction level to them..... and I know nothing...... ( strange that...I hear that all the time )

but yeah, I do not restrict sexuality to sexual desire and attraction, but from friendship right thru to life partner / life sexuality...... as there is many more aspects to human interrelations than who we fuck......

[just4mefc]

I wrote what I was saying, wrong..... lol......I was not calling you or lefur, wrong..... as I can see the merits of both sides and more

I already know that people will argue that we are not bisexual enabled from birth, but there is no way to say that without having the ability to * test * for sexuality at birth.......and therefore no way to disprove the opinion that we are born bisexual..... and frankly, it makes more sense to say that, than say that sexuality only shows up when we are sexually aroused / attracted to a gender.....

I did write a thread in the site once about how friendship with people of both genders can be a sign of platonic bisexual traits and man did I get ripped into for it.....
apparently, friendships are not a aspect of sexuality, and have no attraction level to them..... and I know nothing...... ( strange that...I hear that all the time )

but yeah, I do not restrict sexuality to sexual desire and attraction, but from friendship right thru to life partner / life sexuality...... as there is many more aspects to human interrelations than who we fuck......

man oh man I would have been there to back you up for the record. Ok admittedly we would have fought a bit ;) as we tend to do but in concept I see your point. The only thing I would change in your statement is "can be a sign" to could be a sign. Semantics I know ;)

To me it continues to confuse and confound people that orientation is not about sexual activity, that is why I continue to beat the APA drum on defining the meaning of Orientation. But many people (btw, not speaking of anyone in particular) don't read nor stop to think about an alternative view. They come to the net to hear themselves speak or to find a group that they can be "IN grouped". Discovery of different views in the group can really piss these people off. They seem to see it as a personal attack. But I digress to the thread on "why we fight".

[Annika L]

Wow, this thread has become so interesting!

And as so often happens when a bunch of people from different backgrounds try to discuss something interesting, we're getting hung up on semantics and word definitions.

Generally on sites like this, the word "bisexual" refers to a person's sexuality...people don't tend to agree on the precise definition (some see it as behavioral, others see it as describing a preference or attraction), but it's generally about sexuality. On the other hand, biologists use the word "bisexual" to mean "having characteristics of both sexes". I have also heard some people using the word to mean simply "comes in two sexes".

When Just4me uses the expression "humans are bisexual by nature", I am genuinely unsure what he means...he doesn't seem to be using the word in any of these senses...but his meaning seems to come closest to the last one I mention above. He seems to mean simply that we have sexual organs that are physically capable of being pleasured by members of either sex. I can't and won't argue with that...but that's mostly because I don't think it says much. But I may still be misunderstanding...can you please clarify further what you mean by this expression...please? Just4me?

The other word we're getting hung up on is "LGBT Community"...I'll address that in my next post.

Thanks, everyone, though, for bringing up so many excellent points.

[tenni]

Just4
Excellent thoughts and very well articulated. Thanks Annika for your views as well.

I was agreeing with everything that Just4 was writing except the struggle with the semantics about "being born bisexual". When I came across your addition in this by stating "we START, are born if you will from a neutral "bi" point." I began to understand Just4's perspective better. I wonder if the key may be the word "neutral" rather than "bisexual".

First, we need to accept or come to terms with the infant state of sexuality. Are infants sexual beings? Well, I may be completely wrong but I think that they are but they are not according to adult understanding of sexual "expression". Infants (probably) do not have their own gender identity figured out but children have that figured out by the age of 3 or so...slow ones by 5 in some concept that may not even include genetalia. It may be based on social constructs. "I'm a boy because I wear shorter hair and like trucks." I think that it is earlier that they identify with same gender parents. "I'm boy like Daddy"..not I'm a boy like Daddy because we both have a penis. They may get that connection but be unclear of anatomy of girls or they may get it all for gender identity. It may be more nurture to get gender identity than nature or some mixture as is usual in such questions.

Infants just are. An infant may experience some primitive? form of sexual pleasure. As you wrote, the infant may enjoy the tactile warm sensations of his/her own feces and place no negative value to it. The same may be true for their own sexual organs. An infant penis glans may experience pleasure if massaged. We all know infant males experience erections but they may not be as we identify adult male erections and their sexual implications. As Just4 wrote, an infant may experience this regardless of the gender of the person manipulating the glans or even a breeze, warm water, a diaper, etc. may do it. They are not aroused by a visual stimulus of that person that they see near them or their gender but the tactile sensation itself.

Because they have not identified their gender nor a concept of gender, they can not select an attraction to one or the other.? They are more neutral than bi. What say you just4?

Now, how far are we from the OP? Who cares if the Op doesn't...:)

[MarieDelta]

Not only are the transgendered (the T in LGBT) not acknowledged, but few (including some in the LGBT communicty) even know what the T stands for, let alone differentiate gender issues from issues of sexuality.

In both cases (B and T), it is a matter that people are underinformed, and when people lack knowledge, their first attempt is to try to force things into a binary system (for example George Bush's good vs. evil). Since they know what "gay" means, then "LGBT" to them becomes a symbol for "gay" (not straight). They can't understand that we are not just one spectrum, but two (gender and sexuality), because they are having enough trouble with "gay" to have a chance of understanding that the notion of "spectrum" is even possible.

tm

As always TM, you hit the nail on the head.

In addition I would simply say that as Bisexuals we allow ourselves to blend in to society as straight or gay.

Its very similar to the issue as trans folks we dont necessarily want to attract attention to ourselves. However at some point we need to simply say "this is who and what we are."

Until we have full rights in this society, I suspect that there will always be a few of us who do not want to lose straight (or cisgender) privilege. I accept that is their right to choose and I even understand their reasoning. (I dont wear a t-shirt proclaiming my trans-ness everywhere I go.) That being said, we do need to become more visible if we ever want to gain full rights/ acknowledgement. My reasoining for this is simple - until people realize that their neighbor/ sister/ spouse/ whatever is Bi and / or trans they will continue to see us as something other than "normal."

[Annika L]

And tenni...it doesn't matter a bit to me whether I *want* to be part of the LGBT community...I'm bisexual, and therefore I am in it, because of how LGBT is defined. The question is whether the B (and/or T) presence in that group helps L&G people at our expense, or whether we all benefit and will stand together as an actual community to argue for one another's rights. It feels sometimes as though B (and T) are wanted members of the LGBT community when the L&G groups need numbers...bodies to stand at Pride marches, etc., ...but that as soon as it comes time to argue for rights or education, suddenly we become persona non grata...to weird for the public to handle. I think this is the frustration that the OP expresses in their post...I certainly feel this frustration at times."

Actually, Annika, it is all about whether we want to belong to the GLBT group. You, personally, want to but what about the rest?

Of all of these four groups, the B get to decide if they want to "pass for white" the easiest. There is section of members on this site who believe that it is beneficial to be "publicly" bi and there is a section that says that it is no one else's business. It is the B who may live a hetero life to the maximum perception. There seem to be several on this site. They say that they are B. They are married to opposite gender. They are monogomous. Other than having a sexual attraction to the same sex they are just like every other hetero couple and they don't invite another person into their marriage bed. Unless, they "want" to identify with the GLBT group, it doesn't matter to them. Some say that they don't promote their bisexuality but if anyone asks they will tell them.

There are no consequences unless it is significant for your identity to say that you are a member of the GLBT group. If admitting to yourself that you are bi is all that you need then why be a member of the GLBT group? Nope, Annika it is all about choice for some Bi's.

So what does GLT have for us? Why should we identify or be a member publicly of their group? It may not be critical for us at all unless you are in a same sex relatioship. (gawd....I sound like bis that gays hate...lol)

How many bisexuals go to PRIDE events? There have been no (or almost no?) threads about PRIDE events at this time of year compared to what you might find on a site declaring itself GLBT. Some bis do post that they are active in the gay community and centres. They would be the ones to see a benefit.

Ok..just thought of one. If you are with a same sex lover and you are caught...well guys might get the crap beat out of them by rednecks if the rednecks are bigger. Eh..isn't that the same criteria if you are straight, by yourself and they call you a name/try to beat you up just for fun anyway though?

Maybe, it is bi's like me that make gays not want us in their group?
* you got a bad 'tude tenni ;)

Tenni, I think our only disconnect is in how we see the words "LGBT Community". I take them literally: the community (basically, set) consisting of all people who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgendered. If you are bisexual, then you are part of this group, whether you like it or not. It is not that I personally want to belong to this group, and others don't...we simply do by definition. That is *all* I am saying when I say that it isn't about choice.

Your point, I believe is that there is no point in *considering* the set of all LGBT people...that we do not form a community...that when we refer to "LGBT Community", we *really* mean the L&G community, and they threw "BT" in there for reasons that serve them and not us. I see and respect the validity in this viewpoint.

So there are two areas where bisexuals *do* have choice:
(1) should there be an LGBT community, or should bisexuals as a group separate (thus leaving behind an LGT or just LG community)? and
(2) should I personally be an *active* member of the LGBT community, or should I just live my life and let other bisexuals participate in the community?

I respect both sides of both questions.

On the one hand, I believe any group of people is stronger united than divided. I also believe that bisexuals as a group constitute a small enough group that we need the support of more mainstream groups (like heterosexuals and L&G people) in order to make societal progress. BUT, as I described in my post above, I also feel the frustration of being used and having to "wait our turn" while the L&G boat rises, before ours can. So I definitely respect both sides of (1).

The second choice (2) is more delicate. There are all kinds of issues, such as "how does one be a good citizen in a community", "should you try to be a good citizen even if you believe your community does not support people like you", "is it anybody's business but mine what my sexuality is", or "is it safe for me to be out about my sexuality"? These are complex questions, and I believe each individual must answer them for themselves alone...we should respect those individual choices.

Personally, I am fairly out in my community as having a longterm same-sex partner ("fairly" meaning "we haven't placed an announcement in the paper, but we do nothing to hide the fact that we're a couple"); I am somewhat less out as a bisexual (meaning that I will readily admit a bisexual identity and/or attraction to both men and women whenever it comes up in conversation, but it rarely comes up, since my partner and I are monogamous); and I have some (and in some ways significant) involvement in my local LGBT community, but I'm not even close to pivotal in that community...I serve it as I see fit at any given moment (and I am served by it with exactly the same regularity *smile*).

But I neither laud others (in my area or anywhere) for being more involved or more out than I am, nor criticize others for being less involved or less out than I am.

My only input to the closet question is that for a long time we *were* completely closeted...and that brought us a lot more stress than we even realized for many years. *We* find (and this is echoed by virtually every out LGBT person I've personally spoken with) that being out (and being despised by some for being who we are...including my partner's parents) is much less stressful and much more energizing than being in the closet ever was for us. That's not a judgment; just a widely shared experience...take it for what it's worth (individual mileage may vary).

[tenni]

Annika
Good points.
As a bisexual, you have chosen the opposite of the bisexual who decided to live in a monogomous hetero relationship. I'm wondering if your peer pressure or maybe even the self identification is perhaps closer to the G&L side of a community than bisexual in a monogomous hetero relationship? Yet, you do experience some dissonance within the GLBT group. Your experience may be to have been reinforced positively more so belonging to a more public expression of "gayness" than "heteroness". Maybe, you may been exposed to more positive reinforcement to go along with "gay politics" (being out) than the opposite experience. (being discreet)? Even the selection of your wording is may be "more" gay by using a word such as "closet". I think that the word "Closet" may have been invented ? by gays to label those who do not publicly join their political perspective. It seems weighted with negativity perhaps as "queer" use to be (well really is imo) I think that G, L, T have more reason to be public about their sexuality. Were bisexuals "closeted" or just didn't even know that that there was a grouping? I think that promoting amongst ourselves the fluidity of sexuality may help all humans. I am growing to like that idea as there is no need for "closet" or belonging to a GLBT community. I say that it won't happen but bisexuals may need to create their own language constructs. I suspect that there are just a lot of bis that won't be bothered to be political or "out". Well, not yet at least. Forgive me if I'm off with my opinion though.

[just4mefc]

I never called myself an extremist however you did when you read how I do not agree with what you wrote and replied to my post. You said in your post how in your opinion I am an extremist because I'm a gay man and I do not agree with your false theory that every human is somehow born bisexual or is bisexual.

I'm not throwing a fit at all. I just find it rather amusing that you're so ignorant about human sexuality.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the APA? You realize that until the early 70s the APA diagnosed all sexual orientations that were not heterosexual as being a choice and a mental illness. Psychology is not some holy grail and it does not have the answers to everything. Even though sexual orientations that are not heterosexual are no longer seen as a choice or a mental illness by most psychologists that does not mean that you will not find psychologists out there who are homophobic or biphobic.

Your theory about nurture being what makes someone's sexual orientation does not make any sense at all since if this were true people would be complete carbon copies of each other, human sexuality would be easily molded and formed by nurture by ones parents and they would probably "nurture" their offspring into being heterosexual and it would somehow work.

I know gay men who grew up with parents like this in religious households and they were told since they were children that they were straight men, went through lots of therapy, dated women and some even forced themselves to have sex with women and none of it changed them from being gay men.

I never said the entire species of animals are gay or homosexual like every single member of that species so that they can't reproduce. They have found that some species of birds have some birds of that species which pair in same gender couples that raise offspring on their own and mate for life. This does not mean that the entire species is homosexual.

It's impossible for a guy to be straight or heterosexual and into sucking cock. He's at least sexually attracted to men and in lots of denial about being bisexual or even gay.

Do you even know what a sexual fetish is? It does not have to do with vanilla gay sex like sucking a cock, and sucking cock itself is not a sexual fetish.

Sexual fetishism, or erotic fetishism, is the sexual arousal a person receives from any physical thing (traditionally, an inanimate object) that is not normally considered sexual in nature. The object of interest is called the fetish, the person a fetishist who has a fetish for that object. Examples include boots, cigars/pipes, cigarettes, socks, or something else that's not a sexual organ or sexual to begin with yet people with this fetish are sexually aroused by these non-sexual objects.

You need to study human sexuality a lot more and stop being so passive aggressive with people who don't agree with you on the internet.

Oh well I gave you a chance, but never mind and good luck in life.

Reading is fundamental and I now see you for the same contrarian that has been here before. Now where is that ignore button.

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

[darkeyes]

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

Not long before he died, Kate's dad stopped me arguing with an absolute idiot. He told me "Argue with a fool by all means, for within the fool is often a strange wisdom. But my dear, to argue with an idiot, that makes you his blood kin."

A wise man indeed.

[just4mefc]

Not long before he died, Kate's dad stopped me arguing with an absolute idiot. He told me "Argue with a fool by all means, for within the fool is often a strange wisdom. But my dear, to argue with an idiot, that makes you his blood kin."

A wise man indeed.

Love that :bigrin:

[Annika L]

Annika
Good points.
As a bisexual, you have chosen the opposite of the bisexual who decided to live in a monogomous hetero relationship. I'm wondering if your peer pressure or maybe even the self identification is perhaps closer to the G&L side of a community than bisexual in a monogomous hetero relationship? Yet, you do experience some dissonance within the GLBT group. Your experience may be to have been reinforced positively more so belonging to a more public expression of "gayness" than "heteroness". Maybe, you may been exposed to more positive reinforcement to go along with "gay politics" (being out) than the opposite experience. (being discreet)? Even the selection of your wording is may be "more" gay by using a word such as "closet". I think that the word "Closet" may have been invented ? by gays to label those who do not publicly join their political perspective. It seems weighted with negativity perhaps as "queer" use to be (well really is imo) I think that G, L, T have more reason to be public about their sexuality. Were bisexuals "closeted" or just didn't even know that that there was a grouping? I think that promoting amongst ourselves the fluidity of sexuality may help all humans. I am growing to like that idea as there is no need for "closet" or belonging to a GLBT community. I say that it won't happen but bisexuals may need to create their own language constructs. I suspect that there are just a lot of bis that won't be bothered to be political or "out". Well, not yet at least. Forgive me if I'm off with my opinion though.

Just to clarify, I didn't "decide to live in a homosexual relationship". I fell in love with a woman; we believed in monogamy; life happened. I've written in other threads about my more current views on monogamy, and I will not try to predict the future of my sex life.

Also, just to clarify, I tend to use words literally, rather than judgementally: I used "closeted" not because I see anything wrong with it, but because I hear others (straight, L, G, B, and T) using that word, and I need a single word to refer to the state of "keeping one's sexuality hidden"...and "closeted" seems to be a word that means just that. And to clear up your question, the expression "closeted" does not refer to anyone (LGB or T) who does not realize their sexuality or gender...it means to keep your sexuality intentionally hidden. In any case, I intended no offense, nor do I care who invented the expression. If you like, in my last post, replace "closeted" with "keeping one's sexuality hidden" and "closet" with "state of keeping one's sexuality hidden". I really dislike semantic battles, and avoid them when I can...they are rather like a slow pointless death.

All that being said, you seemed to have a question about my situation, my experience, or my identification with the bisexual community vs. the LG community. What exactly were you asking? Please make your question more explicit.

No, we never had close identification with the LG community. And when we were in a state of keeping our sexuality hidden, we presented as straight roommates. We received neither pressure nor reinforcement from the gay or lesbian communities to be out. We came out when we were ready to do so and were in a place where we felt safe doing so.

I am used to having it wrongly implied that I am closer to lesbian than to bisexual...but it's particularly frustrating when it's bisexuals who imply that.

[tenni]

Annika
I meant no offence and I am not really offended but I do think that due to the negative weight of the word "closeted" that a better word may be found. I am inclined to be semantical. I can not see a bisexual labelling themselves as closeted. I really can not see a discreet person of any sexuality labelling themselves as "closeted". No, I suspect that it came from political gay people who were attempting to create a positive image for themselves and wanting people to speak out about their sexuality with "pride" rather than shame.etc.

Unless bisexuals chose a word for the bisexuals who state that it is "no one's business who I have sex with or am in a relationship with", we leave it to others to label us and the old gay tag is placed on us. This position that GLB must identify their sexual orientation seems inappropriate in a tolerant society. I think that the word "fluid" may be more appropriate than "closeted" or even "bisexual".

There should be no need to be "out".

There should be no need to label people as "closeted".

There should be no need to even inquire about a person's sexuality.

Should there? (unless you are seeking intimacy with that person)

[Annika L]

Annika
I meant no offence and I am not really offended but I do think that due to the negative weight of the word "closeted" that a better word may be found. I am inclined to be semantical. I can not see a bisexual labelling themselves as closeted. I really can not see a discreet person of any sexuality labelling themselves as "closeted". No, I suspect that it came from political gay people who were attempting to create a positive image for themselves and wanting people to speak out about their sexuality with "pride" rather than shame.etc.

Unless bisexuals chose a word for the bisexuals who state that it is "no one's business who I have sex with or am in a relationship with", we leave it to others to label us and the old gay tag is placed on us. This position that GLB must identify their sexual orientation seems inappropriate in a tolerant society. I think that the word "fluid" may be more appropriate than "closeted" or even "bisexual".

There should be no need to be "out".

There should be no need to label people as "closeted".

There should be no need to even inquire about a person's sexuality.

Should there? (unless you are seeking intimacy with that person)

Tenni, you may not like the word "closeted" any more than you like the word "cheating"...the world may some day agree to stop using those words, but the *concepts to which they refer* are still out there. People still violate agreements without the knowledge of others to whom that violation is relevant; people still hide their sexuality from all others (not just being discreet, but hiding it). As long as those concepts exist, people will want words with which to refer to them.

For purposes of further threads, let's just agree to call people who violate agreements without the knowledge of people to whom that violation is relevant "bmips" and let's agree to call the state of hiding your sexuality (or gender identity or preference for pickled cauliflower) "zint". There, now we've lost the judgment attached to those concepts. Happy? I thought not.

Oh! You want the importance attached to the *concepts themselves* to go away? Then change society so people don't care so much. But that may be difficult to do on your own...maybe if there was some kind of community to which you belonged, (not just zinted bmips, but a whole spectrum of people) that could work together to solve issues relevant to you...alas.

Now to answer your questions:

(1) No, there *is* no need to be "out". But there is such a state as being "out".

(2) No, there is no need to label people as "closeted". But some people are zinted, regardless of labeling. They aren't zinted because some group out there wants to shame them...they are zinted because they choose (perhaps for very good, valid, understandable reasons) to hide their sexuality. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a word we could use to refer to those people, when talking about them collectively? Oh, wait, there is! Two, in fact, as of this post!

(3) No, there is absolutely no need to inquire into a person's sexuality. In fact, in polite company (at least outside of sexuality-related chat rooms) this isn't done. But you can't stop people from being curious...and some rude people may even ask. And you can't (currently) stop people from caring, if they should happen to find out that you don't match their definition of an acceptable sexuality...but at least here there is hope: there *is* a community out there that is trying to change this...and you even belong to it, at least by definition...but you should only participate to the extent that you believe they are addressing issues relevant to you.

[roobi]

To repeat myself, I think we are all born Bisexual as a species and the nurture of life forces us to the extremes of gay OR str8.

The gay movement needs to be accepted. Non str8's have been persecuted for as long as anyone can remember. They don't acknowledge "bi" because they see bi's as representing choice. However, that undermines the point "it is not our fault we were born this way" this has proven to be a strong political stance. They include T and B as acknowledgment of being queer to the str8 standard and need us for political clout. Lets face it in light of the lack of freedoms and potential for personal harm that all non str8s face, this is a very necessary alliance!

Str8's reassure themselves the "gays" were born like that, poor them. Glad it ain't me. They see "bi" as a choice and since we choose to be bi we must be freaks or at best in denial. Of course if we chose to be "bi" as they see it, they fear they might do the same thing.

Both groups seem vested in "born that way, not a choice" argument. In my view on some level the extremes of str8 and gay are the ones who "chose" their options. I don't mean choice as in I woke up one day and said hey I want to be gay or str8. I really mean nurtured to be str8 or gay. To clarify even more Nurture as in Nature or Nurture, not as in provide a loving environment.

Just my view :)

That hit the nail on the head for me. Thankyou!:bipride:

[just4mefc]

...can you please clarify further what you mean by this expression...please? Just4me?


Ok Just for you ;)


Wow, this thread has become so interesting!

And as so often happens when a bunch of people from different backgrounds try to discuss something interesting, we're getting hung up on semantics and word definitions.

Generally on sites like this, the word "bisexual" refers to a person's sexuality...people don't tend to agree on the precise definition (some see it as behavioral, others see it as describing a preference or attraction), but it's generally about sexuality.

This is why I give references in my posts. In hopes that we can have a common starting point...

On the other hand, biologists use the word "bisexual" to mean "having characteristics of both sexes". I have also heard some people using the word to mean simply "comes in two sexes".

No my use of bisexual is not a reference to "characteristic's of both sexes" nor of "comes in two sexes". I am using the term as we would commonly use it in humans... sexually. In research same sex contact is often referred to as homosexual to mean same-sex sex. Since "same-sex sex" is difficult and cumbersome to write many scientific authors use homosexual out of convenience. When you read the research you find that in biology there are few pure exclusively homosexual animals. That darn need to procreate and all. This is particularly true in the animals I have mentioned; primates and Dolphins in particular have regular sexual contact with both genders. They are in effect pleasure whores. Just like us. Genetically Bonobo Chimps are our closest relatives. They not only have complete sexual freedom (multiple partners of both genders) but use sex to stop fights and keep the peace, something we humans should learn from in my opinion.

When Just4me uses the expression "humans are bisexual by nature", I am genuinely unsure what he means...he doesn't seem to be using the word in any of these senses...but his meaning seems to come closest to the last one I mention above. He seems to mean simply that we have sexual organs that are physically capable of being pleasured by members of either sex. I can't and won't argue with that...but that's mostly because I don't think it says much. But I may still be misunderstanding...can you please clarify further what you mean by this expression...please? Just4me?


It is not “MY” meaning it has been used since at least 1920 when coined by Freud...

Sigmund Freud~
Innate bisexuality (or predisposition to bisexuality) is a term introduced by Sigmund Freud (based on work by his associate Wilhelm Fliess), that expounds all humans are born bisexual but through psychological development (which includes both external and internal factors) become monosexual while the bisexuality remains in a latent state. In his Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex, Freud discusses.. the biological predisposition to homosexuality or bisexuality.
The conclusions that he draws are based on the fact that at early stages of development, humans undergo a period of hermaphrodism. Based on this, he asserts that, "the conception which we gather from this long known anatomical fact is the original predisposition to bisexuality, which in the course of development has changed to monosexuality, leaving slight remnants of the stunted sex."...

This is but one of many references to “born bisexual” throughout the scientific literature. Of course this does not make Freud right, nor to I believe he is the end all on the subject. Many people take issue with Feud on many things but that does not mean everything he said is wrong...

Kinsey data
In the oft-cited...Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), by Alfred C. Kinsey et al., ... Kinsey reported that... most people appeared to be at least somewhat bisexual — i.e., most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. According to Kinsey, only a minority (5-10%) can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual. Conversely, only an even smaller minority can be considered fully bisexual (with an equal attraction to both sexes)...

Based on this let me say, I contend that if any human were raised from birth by Bonobo society they would in fact be bisexual from birth to death. Free of the constraints of media, persecution, threat of death, constant bombardment that same sex contact is evil or at best to be tolerated by the open minded people of the world. Free of the psychological need for orientation. They might be very fluid throughout their lives but gender would not be the primary drive. Conversely, if we were to raise a Bonobo in human society s/he too would at some point be pushed to the sides of the str8/bi/gay scale.. Just like my poop and children argument said Bonobo might live there whole lives and never experience anything other then hetero or gay feelings. They were nurtured to be who they are and more then likely would be quite happy (as are most humans) with their sexual orientation.

Additionally, the gay movement has contended for years that "you are born gay" and no one would choose to be gay and all the horror that society can bring on such people. Seems reasonable, and lots of money has been spent to scientifically prove the statement, so far very little solid data has been returned. Might be 100% right but as yet unproven. But what has been shown so far seems to point to "humans being born bisexual in the sexual sense" that early development seems to be a major player in orientation. Some of this might be very very early first few days perhaps. Mostly all theory at this point. But if you look at the general personality and self concept of human development, orientation fits more here then in some "I am 100% a product of my genetic code when it comes to orientation" construct.

Here are but a few references...

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers in 2006 stated:
“Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual - including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation...

The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2004 stated:
“The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, ... A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences... Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.

Guess I need to clear up some things on my view of human development. From birth to about 7 years old (give or take a year or so) humans live in the age of magic. This is why we can see Santa on two different corners at the same time and never question does Santa really exist. But around 7 we enter what is often referred to as the age of reason. Now the appearance of 2 Santa's causes much distress and inner conflict. This is also the time we start to become aware of our sexual identity and sexual attraction. Orientation is beginning/continuing to form. Before now unless our parents say not too, we would sit at the dinner table playing with our genitalia non-stop, simple pleasure principle. Perhaps we are told "you will go blind" or "that is for private time" the magic mind has already made decisions and internalized what that means (sex is bad, I am bad for liking it etc...) The lessons learned during the magic mind period will be a major factor in how the self-concept forms. This is a major nurture phase in life. Additionally, the now forming age of reason starts to forget the conscious memories of the magic time. The mind of reason can even discard magic mind memories and experiences that it deems inappropriate. We become spotty on how we felt, what we thought. We start to even make up memories to fill in the blanks. Notice I do not say it is neither good nor bad. Most people will grow to be basically healthy emotional people of all orientations with a handful of life long issues. Nothing major but everybody has something from the time of magic.

So yes I think nurture is the major factor in our orientation. But that is just my view of the data and the current facts. Could all change tomorrow? To me it is just data, if it changes then I will easily change with it. I don't have an actual investment in my opinion, in my hypothesis. I certainly do think that science might eventually prove that nature is more of a factor then current data suggest. I assume there is at least a small amount of nature to the whole thing. Time will tell.

:three:

[ErosUrge]

Since seeing LGBT used as a way to describe all of us who are not heterosexual, I have witnessed through the years that B or T isn't really a part of the discussions in circles when discussions take place about same sex relations; whether in the gay or lesbian community or heterosexual. It has never really bothered me because in truth, we're of a different category as much as I have disdain for categorization. But of course this is how society distinguishes what is what and what is not. Nothing on the political spectrum of things has anything to do with bisexuals; it is always about gay issues. We are the invisible minority or dare I say, the invisible majority as I trust there are far more bisexual people than there are gays. I have no statistics to back this up. I'm just going on what it appears to be and into how many people I run into that are bi. Frankly, I don't think it would matter one bit if they were to drop the B and T out of it since in their discussions, they rarely if ever discuss anything having to do with bisexuality or the transgendered and our concerns. And with so many gay people as so many of us already know, their feeling is that "there's so such thing as bisexuality." I realize this is unfair to those gays who do accept us and are open minded. But the general consensus is that there is no bisexual community...and in a sense, they're right. What I mean by that is that indeed there is a bi community as is proven by this website but we don't have parades or marches to promote an agenda. We simply live as we are and I believe over all are at peace with it. No doubt that society would have and does have more difficulty often enough with having any kind of understanding about being bi. Gayness though still rejected by many heteros does not get the scorn that often comes our way from straights. I remember thinking naively at one time that anyone gay would surely accept me being bi. Boy was I ever in store for a rude awakening a few years later in an encounter with a gay individual. From that I learned that even amongst gays who struggle with discrimination and one would expect to be more accepting and open is a scorn not dis-similar to straights but for different reasons. In conclusion, I find it's no big deal to not be acknowledged in that title, "LGBT"..........it would be better if they just simply said, "LG"...that would definitely be more accurate.

[void()]

"I posted my personal OPINION."

Yes, I noted that and do respect it as such. Was not implying a jihad. Merely saying the argument of nurture vs. nature always seems interesting to me.

From this humble perspective, I feel and think strongly there are folks who are naturally bisexual. There's folks who are naturally heterosexual, homosexual too. And yes there are folks who do get misplaced into the wrong equipment, naturally as well. And it is my estimation that if you accept one of these, you must accept the other two.

Of course, this is just an opinion also. I only draw upon being bisexual most if not all my 38 years living. I'm the sort who was before they knew there was such a thing. It was no real shock to identify so. "Oh, there's a name for it, cool. Oh well."

[tenni]

Roughandgruff
Although I may be inclined to also question how/if trans people connect with my bisexuality issues, I do think that the terms that you have used do not really help a positive discussion of what concerns you. I believe in using a term that the group that you are referring to wish to use rather than a term (s) that they find offensive.

I also think that much of this thread's discussion has wandered a bit but has dealt with bisexuality as its focus. It has been a very interesting discussion for me to read and take part in. I do not see it being taken off track to deal with transperson's gender issues at all but has been rather focused on bisexuality. The OP placed the question about bisexuals amongst the group of GLBT. He did not refer to T at all but bisexuality and so you are correct that the focus was to be the B and not the T.

The second poster was a Tperson and she did take the discussion towards Transgender while connecting it to bisexuality as being different from G&L. The difficulty that I personally have is understanding the sexual orientation issues of being bisexual for T people. I would agree with you that I do find a lot of T people's discussion more centred on their gender issues than sexual orientation issues. I have no idea as to how I see myself as a bisexual and how a T person sees themselves as a bisexual is the same or different. I do seem to read more about their gender issues and acceptance of their gender than the sexual orientation.

This makes me think that it is difficult to find commonality with G&L people who as others have written do not understand our issues. If our only connection is that none of us are "hetero" we are discussing sexual orientation and not gender....are we not? It can be confusing when we mix all of our issues in one bag. It is no wonder some G&L do not acknowledge anyone but their own.

[Long Duck Dong]

Why does every single discussion about how straights gays and lesbians don't understand bisexuals which is not true BTW, do people get side tracked by some she male who whines and complains about how people don't understand he/she/it and how he/she/it has gender dysphoria disorder and is gender queer?

People are not uninformed about bisexuality. This includes gay men, lesbians, and straight people and these monosexual do accept and even understand bisexuality.

Trans she males and Intersex or hermaphrodite people do not belong grouped with gay men, dykes, or bisexuals.

Being a gay man, lesbian woman, or bisexual is someone's sexual orientation and it has nothing to do with someone that's she male or intersex or what's called a hermaphrodite. This includes the politics behind being Trans or a hermaphrodite and whatever rights she males are claiming that they need.

The mantra of transsexual she males and hermaphrodites is "Nobody understands us!"

Then you go and use the term "cisgender" as a slur towards us and say that we are transphobic. I have read lists that shemales wrote and compiled that showed everything wrong with cisgender people and I have read comments written by shemales on blogs for and primarily about gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals that have nothing to do with shemales or hermaphrodites.

As for Trans and hermaphrodites you guys do not like people who are cisgender and call us bigots because we refuse to date or get involved in a relationship with someone who is Trans or fight for your rights and do your dirty work for you with politics when it is our personal preference not to do any of this.

Then Trans people play the pussy PC victim card and then want to be considered Cisgender by us but you never will be the gender that you think that you are no matter how many surgeries, hormones you pop like candy and get injected with, and whatever else you do to think you'll pass it does not work or really make you the opposite sex or gender.

No matter how much you think you pass it's easy to tell if someone is a She male and you're not cisgender at all since if you were you would have been born the right sex and gender.

If She males and hermaphrodites want their own rights, recognition, and for people to understand them they should do it themselves and stop riding on the hard work that gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals have all done for ourselves for decades without any of your help.

Contrary to what people believe about Stonewall there were no drag queens there the first night at all and drag queens did not start the riots. There's a longtime Trans she male activist named Sylvia Rivera who claims that he was there at Stonewall but he was never there at all and rewrites history to suit his own Trans agenda all while hating cisgender people.

There are Trans she males who get very angry at major strides in rights for cisgender Bisexuals, gay men and lesbians that don't include anything for Trans people and yet are still major accomplishments for GLB people and then you have Trans people who are way less than 1% of the population who complain about how cisgender gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians have rights that they don't have and want to get grouped in with cisgender GLB people who they have nothing in common with since cisgender GLB people do not have gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria at all.

She Males and hermaphrodites have never been a part of the family of cisgender gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in the queer community and you never will be.

We cisgender gay, bisexual, and lesbians do not want people like she males and hermaphrodites to be grouped with us since there is no reason at all why people with gender identity dysphoria need to be with us or need our help at all.

Even if we cisgender bisexuals, heterosexuals, lesbians, and gay men claim that we are for she male and hermaphrodite rights we are really not for them at all when it comes to putting our money where our mouth is and when push comes to shove we are going to put ourselves as cisgender queers first before we do anything for the TS she males and hermaphrodites.

couple of points....

1) the bi ride the coat tails of the L&G..... as the majority of bis are not affected by the no same sex marriage laws.....

2) trans and intersex people are a gender..... their sexuality can be les, gay and bi or straight...... I myself am intersex.... does that mean I should not be standing with the LGB cos I am intersex, yet standing beside them cos I have a bisexual nature ?

3) same sex rights etc... affect many trans people and intersex people, as they would love the rights to marry too.... and at times, to a person of the same gender, while they transistion

4) almost all the trans people I know.... are not judgmental of cisgender and do not hold cisgender in contempt..... they just ignore the opinionated people and get on with their lives.....

[Long Duck Dong]

Who says that the majority of bisexuals are somehow not effected by the fact that they can't marry someone of the same sex or gender?

Most bisexual men and women I know and have met in my life are in relationships with people of the same gender/sex so laws for lesbians and gays and same sex and gender marriage do effect us.

I'm not sure what it is like where you live but in some states you can still be fired or severely reprimanded at your job, or be denied housing and other things because you are bisexual, gay, or lesbian.

We cisgender bisexuals, gay men, and lesbians have been fighting for our rights for over 40 years and we deserve them now. There are more cisgender gay men, lesbian women, and bisexuals of both sexes and genders than there are of she male transsexuals and hermaphrodites.

If hermaphrodites and she male transsexuals want their rights they can have them too but as cisgender gays, lesbians, and bisexuals we are going to fight and push for our rights first.

If you identify more with hermaphrodites and transsexual she males you are free to fight for their rights and stand with them as one of them.

the bisexuals that are not interested in marrying a person of the same sex......and being in a relationship with a person of the same gender, doesn't mean that they want to marry them
I was making the point that bisexuals have the freedom to marry that is not widely available to les and gay people...... but that bisexuals are not restricted from marrying as a absolute... they have choices in marriage

I am aware that there is discrimination and biased, but again.... bisexuals have had a freer range than the gays and lesbians...... and we are able to hide within main stream society better than lesbians and gays, for the most part

actually bisexuals have not been condemned by religion and other groups on the scale of gay males...... even lesbians can not claim to have suffered the same level of discrimination as gay males.....

trans peoples issues are different in nature to a sexuality based issue..... they have gender identity based issues.....

and you can fight for your own rights..... I will continue to look out for the LGBT community and their basic human rights, the same as we did in NZ.....
we treated everybody equally, the LGBT and heteros all were covered under the civil union bill....not just the LGBT....

that is the difference between me and my country and a lot of other countries and groups...... we applied the rules equally with the civil union bill

[Long Duck Dong]

I said I am bisexual but I am not controlled by my dick.....IE I do not have the primal urge, as for the sexually obsessed bisexual remark..... yeah, based around the threads in the site that are predominately males talking about their need to have sex, sex and more sex......yet the ladies tend to talk about other issues.... I would say the males are sexually obsessed

now a lesson in human nature.... sexuality doesn't disappear the moment you are not having sex.... if that was the case, any person that is not having sex, has no sexuality......

now different sexualities face different issues in different countries and states.... but the issues only affect people based around their behievour and their relationships

hence a private natured bisexual that is in a opposite gender relationship, is less likely to run into issues that a out and proud bisexual in a same gender relationship may run into.....
but unlike you, I also see a trans bi, trans gay, trans les and trans hetero, as a valid part of the LGB community.... as their gender identity, doesn't exclude them from sexuality based issues or some how imply that their sexuality is not as valid as a cisgender person, just cos they are trans gender

[just4mefc]

Just4
Excellent thoughts and very well articulated. Thanks Annika for your views as well.

I was agreeing with everything that Just4 was writing except the struggle with the semantics about "being born bisexual". When I came across your addition in this by stating "we START, are born if you will from a neutral "bi" point." I began to understand Just4's perspective better. I wonder if the key may be the word "neutral" rather than "bisexual".

First, we need to accept or come to terms with the infant state of sexuality. Are infants sexual beings? Well, I may be completely wrong but I think that they are but they are not according to adult understanding of sexual "expression". Infants (probably) do not have their own gender identity figured out but children have that figured out by the age of 3 or so...slow ones by 5 in some concept that may not even include genetalia. It may be based on social constructs. "I'm a boy because I wear shorter hair and like trucks." I think that it is earlier that they identify with same gender parents. "I'm boy like Daddy"..not I'm a boy like Daddy because we both have a penis. They may get that connection but be unclear of anatomy of girls or they may get it all for gender identity. It may be more nurture to get gender identity than nature or some mixture as is usual in such questions.

Infants just are. An infant may experience some primitive? form of sexual pleasure. As you wrote, the infant may enjoy the tactile warm sensations of his/her own feces and place no negative value to it. The same may be true for their own sexual organs. An infant penis glans may experience pleasure if massaged. We all know infant males experience erections but they may not be as we identify adult male erections and their sexual implications. As Just4 wrote, an infant may experience this regardless of the gender of the person manipulating the glans or even a breeze, warm water, a diaper, etc. may do it. They are not aroused by a visual stimulus of that person that they see near them or their gender but the tactile sensation itself.

Because they have not identified their gender nor a concept of gender, they can not select an attraction to one or the other.? They are more neutral than bi. What say you just4?

Now, how far are we from the OP? Who cares if the Op doesn't...:)

Tenni, I think I covered most of this in the reply to Annika, But I will add that what you describe is often called the "un-carved block" in Taoism. That neutral would be like a block yet to be carved. That would be my minimum thought. Born "neutral and un-carved" but really I lean to the born bi stance.

[Annika L]

I apologize up front for the length of this post and for the extent to which it is off-topic to the OP.

If I may try to paraphrase your position and argument, Just4me:

You see bisexuality as a default state for humans, where heterosexuality and homosexuality are mostly social constructs learned after birth. Your evidence for believing this includes:

(1) Many species contain individuals that are bisexual;
(2) Freud believed it;
(3) Kinsey's data show that sexual preference occurs on a spectrum of which very few people occupy the extremes;
(4) The APA (and related societies) have not come to a conclusion on the cause or source of sexuality;
(5) The American Academy of Pediatrics also admits that they don't know what causes sexuality, but believes it's more than one thing. [Their statement that orientation is established during early childhood does not say orientation is learned, any more than the fact that your adult tooth-structure is established during early childhood suggests that your teeth are learned.]
(6) Our brains become more sophisticated as we develop as children, and we make up stories to fill in gaps.

I must say that your conclusion feels to me like a bit of a stretch based on this evidence.

I read the evidence you present slightly differently:
(1) If most *members* of many/most species were bisexual, I would consider *that* to be evidence of your position. But from what I've read, the observed incidence of homosexual behavior in other species (thus resulting in what humans call bisexual individuals) is about the same as in our species...much less than half. So even in species (presumably) without well-developed senses of morality, bisexuality is not common, although it exists. That to me is an argument that bisexuality is *natural* (not evil or perverse), but also an argument that it is *not* default...if it were default, we should see it more pervasively in other species.

(2) As you point out, Freud is not the be-all-and-end-all of psychology (although I have great respect for a lot of his models). He also tended to advance positions that played to his own issues. I do not draw conclusions from his positions.

(3) Kinsey's data are interesting and useful, but I do not see them as strong support for your view. First, let me say that I definitely believe that sexuality occurs on a spectrum, and it makes complete sense to me that very few people occupy either extreme endpoint. Interestingly, he also cites that just as few people occupy the exact middle as well...so much for a bell curve. So where is everybody? *Probably* (I'm guessing) most people are on the straight side. In this case we have a skewed distribution of sexualities. Interesting...but not evidence that we all start out as bisexual...I don't see how it even relates. If the distribution was normal (bell-shaped), I could see an argument that we all start in the center, and migrate outward, left or right...but a skewed distribution? I don't see that as evidence that we start in the center, but that the default would appear to be straight-leaning (a notion that would jive well with evolution and survival of a species).

Now one can argue here that if 5-10% are "completely straight" and 5-10% are "completely gay", then 80-90% are bisexual. I think that takes in a far too broad definition of "bisexual". If "completely straight" means "never has a thought about same-sex and would never do it even if paid"...is a person who *has* thought about it, but still would never do it even if paid bisexual, then? Certainly not...just as sexuality is not dichotomous, nor is it trichotomous, unless you divide up the spectrum arbitrarily into 3 parts. But if you, say, divided it into three equal parts, I'd lay money that the majority would fall into the straight third. So I am far from buying the 80-90% bisexual argument.

(4) I don't see how people not knowing what causes sexuality supports a belief that we're all born bisexual (or sexually neutral) and learn our sexuality...specifically, they're saying that (among other theories) they've not seen enough evidence to draw that conclusion.

In fact, there have been quite a few studies that suggest that children raised by same-sex parents are no more or less likely to end up LGBT than anyone else. But that would be evidence against sexuality being (fully) a learned construct.

(5) Again, I don't see how the statement of The American Academy of Pediatrics supports your case...they're just admitting they don't know the answer...and again, they suggest that there's probably more than one component to it. (If your position was simply that sexuality isn't 100% genetic, then I'd agree that this supports that.)

(6) While true, I don't see how this points to your conclusion.

Overall, I see the evidence you present as suggesting that sexuality is probably partly genetic and partly socially influenced, with a bias (whether genetic or social) in the direction of heterosexuality, and pretty much fully in place by early childhood.

The fact that you draw your conclusions from this evidence suggests to me simply that you *want* to believe your conclusions, and are willing to intuit whatever connections you need to in order to draw your conclusion (as you say, we develop good facility with telling ourselves stories to fill in gaps that we want or need to fill). I can't blame any bisexual for *wanting* to believe your view, because it flatters us: we are the special ones who were strong enough to resist society's pull, and continue to be ourselves, whereas *most* humans, although starting out just like us, relent to getting pulled toward one pole or another. Aren't we cool? I don't buy it...it's just as self-serving as the arguments that we're all really *still* bisexual, and only we are enlightened enough to realize it. That and the evidence for it just isn't there.

[Long Duck Dong]

ok

if sexuality is measured in attraction....... then how do we measure friendship
what is the defining factor that decides why we are friends with one person and not another......

attraction starts with some connection.... but so does sexual attraction...... and attraction to gender

if a person is attracted more to friends of one gender or friends equally of both genders, how do we define that ?????

we have the issue that you use the catch phrase of attraction to define sexuality yet we lack a defined starting point for the attraction..... unless we use sex and sexual desire as the starting point.... yet a lot of relationships do not start from the desire to fuck somebody, they start from a attraction of a emotional / mental aspect as well.......

to all that are saying that we are not bisexual from birth.... can you please help define the nature of attraction of friendship and how sexuality can play no part in forming friendships, yet emotional and mental attraction is a big part of friendships and relationships......

I would be very interested to see what others think about this..... and how we define sexuality using attraction while arguing that sexuality is sexual attraction but bisexuality is not just about sex and sexual attraction but also a emotional and mental attraction as well for many

[Annika L]

I agree with you Annika there is just no evidence that everyone that's human is born bisexual or is bisexual but does not realize it.

If this were true society would be very different. There would not be a closet for having a sexuality that is different than heterosexual, people would not see bisexuality or being gay or lesbian a "taboo", and heterosexuals would not be the majority of the human population in all human cultures and societies around the world and instead heterosexuals would be a minority like GLBT people are.

Kinsey never said that most people were bisexual or somehow had same sex attractions, desires, or same sex sexual experiences.

Kinsey's studies on human sexuality are over 50 years old, they are biased, and Kinsey did not pick people who represent the majority of the human population at the time.

It does seem like just4mefc wants to think or see that every human is somehow born bisexual or is bisexual when it's not true. You are correct Annika that the whole argument does sound like invalidation of heterosexuality and being gay or lesbian and just4mefc is no better than the Conservative Republicans and ex gay bigots.

I have never experienced anyone that's not bisexual telling me that I'm not bisexual and even if someone did try to say that I'm lesbian or straight I would not care since I know I'm neither.

Ok, hold on. I want to make it clear that I have the utmost respect for Just4me and consider him thoughtful and intelligent. I just happen to disagree with him on this issue, and don't see that this argument of his holds water.

I think comparing him to Conservative Republicans and ex gay bigots is much more of a stretch than his argument was.

My statement was that he believes what he believes (very likely unconsciously) because his view flatters bisexuals...I don't mind somebody flattering bisexuals...I find it rather...um...flattering. But if a person is flattering bisexuals just because they like how such flattery feels, and not because their flattery is due, then I'm going to point that out...it doesn't mean I think he's the anti-Christ (after all, we all know that tenni is the anti-Christ...d'oh, I mean the anti-void :tong:).

[Long Duck Dong]

Being bisexual is not based on friendships that someone makes. You have to actually be sexually attracted to both genders or sexes to be bisexual.

Not all bisexuals can fall in love with both sexes or genders and they may like sex with both sexes or genders but only fall in love with one gender or sex.

You can love someone as a friend if they are that good of a friend but that does not mean that you are somehow bisexual since you'd have to have sexual attraction to both sexes or genders.

Friendship or loving someone as a platonic friend is not the same as romantic love, desire, eros, sexual desire, or even lust. Friendship alone does not make someone bisexual or capable of being bisexual.

Keep in mind that yes some people do have lust towards their friends when they first meet them, and do fuck their friends or become friends after they have sex with the person that they're sexually attracted to and there is nothing wrong with this.

so that rules out asexuals as bisexual as they have no sexual attraction but a emotional and mental attraction

that rules out any person that is not sexually active or sexually aware of a attraction, so that makes a number of the people in the site, wrong when they call themselves bisexual

it removes the emotional and mental attraction aspect of attractions with bisexuals... and places bisexuality as a sexual desire only..... and in that case, anybody that would argue with me when I say that a lot of bisexuality is actually a expression of a sexual desire and a attraction just to genitalita.... hence a sexual fetish.... is incorrect.... as your statement says that its sexually based
therefore.... most bisexuals are sexual fetish people... not people with a bisexual aspect.......

am I correct or incorrect on assuming that

[Long Duck Dong]

Long Duck You're ignoring the fact that being bisexual is not a fetish.

Bisexuality not based on a sexual fetish such as latex or leather, as bisexuality is a sexual orientation or a sexual preference. An attraction to someone's genitals is not a sexual fetish like a foot fetish is.

Nope asexuals are not bisexual. Supposedly asexual do not have any sexual attraction to anyone and don't even enjoy sex even if they've had it with both men and women.

Nope you do not have to be sexually experienced with both genders or sexes or even one to be bisexual. A straight or lesbian virgin does not somehow stop being that orientation just because she's never had sex.

I know gay men and lesbians who have had sex and even relationships with the opposite gender and this happened before they were out of the closet.

This does not make them bisexual even if by your false logic and arguments that it would.

Sexual awareness comes in many forms like being physically aroused or turned on, sexual fantasies or dreams, and other things.

I am not ignoring the fact....as the fact is that a sexual fetish can include a attraction to genitalia......but a fetish needs to be a object of attraction that distracts a person from normal thinking and actions
hence entering a shop not with the intention of shopping but to go directly to find a glory hole, can be a fetish, as its not normal behievour to do that in a supermarket ....

asexuals can in fact be bisexual..... google asexuality.... asexuals are capable of having a sexual relationship with people.... they lack a primal sex drive....

now you said that to be bisexual you have to be sexually attracted to both genders.... yet now you are saying that you do not have to be sexually experienced to be bisexual.......
how do you know you are bisexual without the sexual experience to prove its not just a fantasy... and in fact a sexual attraction.... unless sexual fantasies can make a person bisexual

and as for my false logic..... you just stated yourself, that bisexuality is a sexual attraction to both genders..... gays and lesbians that have been with the same gender and the opposite gender, can be labeled bisexual..... and its not wrong..... as they fit the cricteria you laid out.... yet its their choice how they choose to persent themselves, not for me to decide

[DuckiesDarling]

hmmm there's that word "closeted"... do we call you angela, hot_fun_summertime or just gayazn?

[Long Duck Dong]

Having sex at a glory hole instead of going shopping is not a sexual fetish.

It's called being horny, having public sex with a stranger, and getting laid. It's not a sexual fetish even if the person goes to a glory hole daily and sucks off hundreds of cocks over the years.

Some people do shop and then suck cock or get sucked at the same time since glory holes are in the men's bathroom of malls and shopping areas.

I have gay and bisexual male friends who love it and it's not a fetish for them and I do not judge. I know of glory holes in adult bookstores that are not in a men's bathroom but I do not want to go there and most of the men there are not interested in having sex with women at all.


Do you even know what an actual sexual fetish is? It's not just an attraction to someone's genitals as those are already sexual and are not and cannot be a sexual fetish at all.

Gay men and lesbian women who have sex with the opposite gender who they are not attracted to at all are not bisexual because they are not sexually attracted to the opposite gender or sex or both sexes or genders unlike bisexuals are.

There's such a thing as being closeted or in denial about your sexuality which is what these people were or are and sometimes they do pretend that they are straight or bisexual just because they date or sleep with the opposite gender even though there is no sexual attraction there at all for them for that gender or sex.

This does not make them bisexual or mean that they are secretly bisexual just because they have had sex or a relationship with the opposite gender just to hide being gay or lesbian.

I have looked up information on asexuality and asexuals are not bisexual or any sexual orientation since they do not have any sexual attractions to anyone apparently and it's the lack of a sexual orientation.

ok..... for a start.....

sexual fetish and fetish are two different aspects........ a fetish of a sexual fetish is a fetish....... a sexual arousal fetish with a inanimate object is still a sexual fetish but its a sexual arousal fetish....

now going shopping is not a fetish.... but going into shops with the hope or knowledge that there is going to be a gloryhole and for not other reason... is a aspect of a sexual fetish....

people that have sex with the opposite sex, and then the same sex, are acting in a manner associated with bisexual behievour..... heteros, gays and lesbians that only stay with the same or opposite gender, are not acting in a manner associated with bisexual behievour.....
but nor do they have to be sexually attracted to a person to fuck them, they just have to be in the mood for sex...... people that have sex with the same and opposite gender, also do not have to be sexually attracted to a person, they just need to be in the mood to fuck...... a lot of bi males have posted in the site about how they want quick random sex.... and they do not care about the person they are doing it with..... they just want sex....

there are closeted people and people in denial and those that are not sure about their sexuality and those that try sex with the opposite gender and then with the same gender and then realise their predominate sexuality.....

and as for asexuality..... I notice constantly that people miss this site
Asexuality (http://www.asexuality.org/home/)

and in that site is this....
" I identify as (straight/gay/bi/something else), but I still fit your definition of asexuality. Am I wrong?

No you're not wrong. Many asexuals with 'romance drives' also have an orientation (they only fall for certain types of people). Some asexuals may decide only to form relationships with a certain type of person for some intellectual reason, or it could be a simple preference like preferring chocolate flavour to strawberry. Other asexuals identify as bisexual because their asexual relationships are not based upon gender (chocolate and strawberry both being very tasty). Asexuals might form unconventional relationships and therefore identify as polyamorous or queer.

There is no reason why you have to identify as just one thing. You could decide to identify as a bi asexual or as polyamorous and asexual or as an asexual polyamorous bi person... or you could make up your own entirely new identity. But remember, whether or not you fit the definition of asexuality, you're welcome in the asexual community. "

next ??????

[just4mefc]

First off s/he's bacccccck. The clown that crawls out from under that ridiculous narrow little car - Angela X, always a new nose but always the same routine. Ignore Button - ENGAGED!

[tenni]

As far as Just4 position about the majority of humans being bisexual as a default setting is concerned, I'm inclined to agree with Annika. However, Just4's position reminds me of a funny sex site called. "baitbus.com".

The premise of this site is that a van drives around stopping to speak to a variety of young men. The "bait" is a very well endowed young woman. The off camera male voice talks to the young man on a variety of pretenses trying to get the guy into the bus van.

Once inside through discussion, the young woman (bait) lowers her top to show off her endowment that brings an instant smile to the apparently hetero male. Sometimes, he is invited to touch her breasts and always invited to take his shirt off to show her his body. Compliments are given to the young guy about his body. Next thing you know he is convinced to be blindfolded while she gives him a bj.

After blind folding the young man another guy does the actual bj. Of course, the young man ends up peaking to see how the woman looks while servicing him. He reacts with revulsion and borderline threats of violence. Some actually hit the camera which they know is running. His boner is still up though as he tries to put his pants back on. He professes not to be "like that". When offered money to have sex with the "gay" bj guy, the young hetero guy refuses but somehow ends up screwing the guy. Both cum and the off camera voice ends up saying that gee "you didn't have to bust a nut". The "straight" guy looks either befuddled (as in what have I just done) or at other times gives the camera the finger as he is still panting.

Now, we do not know how many guys that they try before they get a "straight" guy to go all the way but it might hold some support for Just4's view....lol It might also support the theory that young men are so randy at times that they will screw a tree hole if horny enough...lol

On a more serious point, I am a bit concerned that believing that bisexuality is a default sexual orientation reminds me of a gay perspective that "bisexuals are just gay in denial"..not sure why other than humans may have a tendency to think that we are biased to thinking that everyone is really "just like us"?

[boss_hogg]

You are right that gays often find the notion of bi as being equivalant to sitting on the fence in that one must be one or the other and that stating bi is less gay than outright gay. It's a question that often comes up and I'm never quite sure how to respond without being defensive.

[just4mefc]

Annika L;

If I may try to paraphrase your position and argument, Just4me:

You see bisexuality as a default state for humans, where heterosexuality and homosexuality are mostly social constructs learned after birth. Your evidence for believing this includes:

(1) Many species contain individuals that are bisexual;

No I said many species are bisexual. The entire group not just a few individuals.

(2) Freud believed it;
(3) Kinsey's data show that sexual preference occurs on a spectrum of which very few people occupy the extremes;
(4) The APA (and related societies) have not come to a conclusion on the cause or source of sexuality;
(5) The American Academy of Pediatrics also admits that they don't know what causes sexuality, but believes it's more than one thing. [Their statement that orientation is established during early childhood does not say orientation is learned, any more than the fact that your adult tooth-structure is established during early childhood suggests that your teeth are learned.]

I never said learned. But to use your analogy ask any dentist and yes in fact early development plays a huge role in adult tooth structure. Influences would include, sucking your thumb, lack of general dental care, type of foods chewing of gum or really hard foods... So certainly early development DOES influence the outcome! here was my post from them... I will bold the keys points...

“The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, ... A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences... Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.

You seem to be missing the point of the word Orientation. Orientation is a self concept. The development of the "self" happens over the course of life but is mostly established by lets say 15 perhaps even way earlier. The self develops things like "I am... smart, good at puzzles, a good/bad person etc etc" and finds evidence to support these judgements.

(6) Our brains become more sophisticated as we develop as children, and we make up stories to fill in gaps.

Actually this is just EGO concept and is constantly playing in the background. But that is another argument ;)

I must say that your conclusion feels to me like a bit of a stretch based on this evidence.

I read the evidence you present slightly differently:
(1) If most *members* of many/most species were bisexual, I would consider *that* to be evidence of your position. But from what I've read, the observed incidence of homosexual behavior in other species (thus resulting in what humans call bisexual individuals) is about the same as in our species...much less than half. So even in species (presumably) without well-developed senses of morality, bisexuality is not common, although it exists. That to me is an argument that bisexuality is *natural* (not evil or perverse), but also an argument that it is *not* default...if it were default, we should see it more pervasively in other species.

"Stepping up to the mic, tap tap hello is this thing on?" Bonobos have a 100% incidence of bisexuality. As I said in my last post, they are our closest genetic relative. So for those people who think there is a genetic reason for their orientation... you might be right. But seeing how close our genetic code is to Bonobo's then it is highly likely that we too are born 100% bisexual. Now show me some evidence that this is wishful thinking?

(2) As you point out, Freud is not the be-all-and-end-all of psychology (although I have great respect for a lot of his models). He also tended to advance positions that played to his own issues. I do not draw conclusions from his positions.

Agreed and his use of LATENT is heavy handed in my view. But you would be a bit arrogant to simply ignore them, don't you think??

(3) Kinsey's data are interesting and useful, but I do not see them as strong support for your view. First, let me say that I definitely believe that sexuality occurs on a spectrum, and it makes complete sense to me that very few people occupy either extreme endpoint. Interestingly, he also cites that just as few people occupy the exact middle as well...so much for a bell curve. So where is everybody? *Probably* (I'm guessing) most people are on the straight side. In this case we have a skewed distribution of sexualities. Interesting...but not evidence that we all start out as bisexual...I don't see how it even relates. If the distribution was normal (bell-shaped), I could see an argument that we all start in the center, and migrate outward, left or right...but a skewed distribution? I don't see that as evidence that we start in the center, but that the default would appear to be straight-leaning (a notion that would jive well with evolution and survival of a species).

Survival of the species is a non-issue for a Bisexual population.

Now one can argue here that if 5-10% are "completely straight" and 5-10% are "completely gay", then 80-90% are bisexual. I think that takes in a far too broad definition of "bisexual". If "completely straight" means "never has a thought about same-sex and would never do it even if paid"...is a person who *has* thought about it, but still would never do it even if paid bisexual, then? Certainly not...just as sexuality is not dichotomous, nor is it trichotomous, unless you divide up the spectrum arbitrarily into 3 parts. But if you, say, divided it into three equal parts, I'd lay money that the majority would fall into the straight third. So I am far from buying the 80-90% bisexual argument.

You don't like that the data is split in the way it is but that does not make it in and of itself invalid. Only the person who had the non-acting thought can say if they have a bisexual orientation. As I have said before they orient str8 and have sexual fetish that is genital based. Orientation in my vocabulary continues to be a self concept.

(4) I don't see how people not knowing what causes sexuality supports a belief that we're all born bisexual (or sexually neutral) and learn our sexuality...specifically, they're saying that (among other theories) they've not seen enough evidence to draw that conclusion.

Not a belief and in truth MIGHT be 100% wrong. However, there is lots of data in this camp. Very little data in the other camps... for now. Not a conclusion since conclusion imply's "end of story concluded" not even close to a conclusion. This is a beginning!!!

In fact, there have been quite a few studies that suggest that children raised by same-sex parents are no more or less likely to end up LGBT than anyone else. But that would be evidence against sexuality being (fully) a learned construct.

This is a great point. In fact I was going to use it FOR MY argument... See to me this fact shows that the word nurture is highly misunderstood. The influences of the society as a whole, the insidious nature of "str8 is right and correct" is around us everywhere. Many (not all) gay couples go out of their way to raise their children in what we might call "normal" households. After all gay couples send there kids to school, play grounds, sports teams etc... So of course their children will have the same percentage of gay/str8. Also if the reason for sexual identity was genetic wouldn't we see a higher incidence of gay people born to gay parents that used gay/gay donors or simply had gay/gay sex for the purpose of procreation? Gay couples have been finding other gay people to be the donor/host for they children for along time now. Not a lot of data to answer this question yet, but so far the incidence of "gay/srt8" appears to be the same.

(5) Again, I don't see how the statement of The American Academy of Pediatrics supports your case...they're just admitting they don't know the answer...and again, they suggest that there's probably more than one component to it. (If your position was simply that sexuality isn't 100% genetic, then I'd agree that this supports that.)

Bingo.

(6) While true, I don't see how this points to your conclusion.

Overall, I see the evidence you present as suggesting that sexuality is probably partly genetic and partly socially influenced, with a bias (whether genetic or social) in the direction of heterosexuality, and pretty much fully in place by early childhood.

The fact that you draw your conclusions from this evidence suggests to me simply that you *want* to believe your conclusions, and are willing to intuit whatever connections you need to in order to draw your conclusion (as you say, we develop good facility with telling ourselves stories to fill in gaps that we want or need to fill).

I fully acknowledge that I might be victim of personal bias. However, I have spent a long long time on the self discovery road. I am not the least bit invested in my position and I welcome your evidence to counter my statements. I did not post any of this to prove my stance. If you remember you asked me to clarify my "opinion" I gave this data and opinion at your request. I really don't care where the data lands. I don't care if I was born gay and somehow became str8 then bi or any combo thereof. Now ask your self this "am I discarding of evidence because I want to NOT believe it. Am I failing to open my mind for fear of the result?" I am not suggesting this is the case for that would be rather presumptuous on my part. You did however read my repeated post about bisexual Bonobo society as meaning "a few individuals"

Again checking that the mic is actually on... as I ended my previous post..
So yes I think nurture is the major factor in our orientation. But that is just my view of the data and the current facts. Could all change tomorrow? To me it is just data, if it changes then I will easily change with it. I don't have an actual investment in my opinion, in my hypothesis. I certainly do think that science might eventually prove that nature is more of a factor then current data suggest. I assume there is at least a small amount of nature to the whole thing. Time will tell.

I can't blame any bisexual for *wanting* to believe your view, because it flatters us: we are the special ones who were strong enough to resist society's pull, and continue to be ourselves, whereas *most* humans, although starting out just like us, relent to getting pulled toward one pole or another. Aren't we cool?

If any LGBT person uses what I have pointed out to mean any of this, then they are abject morons! It is just data. You are no more special for a feature of birth (bisexual) then having been born with a nose. Ok you have a nose, big whoop.

I don't buy it...it's just as self-serving as the arguments that we're all really *still* bisexual, and only we are enlightened enough to realize it. That and the evidence for it just isn't there.

No we are not all STILL bisexual. That is not an accurate validation of the data I present... at all.

perhaps this will help.... This is my hypothesis...

For the sake of argument, We are all born 100% bisexual. Capable of attraction equally to either sex. Then we are all influenced by nurture and moved off this center point. Most people wind up on the str8 side of things, and a certain percentage wind up gay. Then a very few are bisexual at this point. (ref kinsey data) Now many people will have a return to this early bisexual state. Usually comes with a significant amount of distress as they move back toward the center point. But unlike when we were born very few will ever land equally balanced on the scale. (kinsey again) Perhaps their nurture state was less permanent? Less set in stone per se then those who remain 100% gay/str8? Not sure why but this is where the real fun theory stuff comes in (imho). So those who are not moved from their "in stone point" are not really "bi" anymore. Only they know the answer to that question. So I am not suggesting in anyway that "in stone" people are wrong, in denial etc. Just like I am not saying that bisexuals who are not dead center of the scale are wrong not normal either. Once the clay is cast so to speak I don't think it is ever returned to the virgin state. So therefore you are who you are, str8/gay/or any of a thousand shades of bisexual. The challenge is in the self discovery.


In summary,

Genetic evidence (Bonobo's chimps) points to born bisexual...

Human development theory points to just about everything being influenced by nurture but you want to remove orientation (a self concept) from the pool for no reason other then you don't like it.

Millons of dollars have been spent to prove a genetic link and/or disprove the born bi stance, yet no solid data has been returned..

One more ref to my last post, please respond to this...

Based on this let me say, I contend that if any human were raised from birth by Bonobo society they would in fact be bisexual from birth to death. Free of the constraints of media, persecution, threat of death, constant bombardment that same sex contact is evil or at best to be tolerated by the open minded people of the world. Free of the psychological need for orientation. They might be very fluid throughout their lives but gender would not be the primary drive. Conversely, if we were to raise a Bonobo in human society s/he too would at some point be pushed to the sides of the str8/bi/gay scale..

[just4mefc]

As far as Just4 position about the majority of humans being bisexual as a default setting is concerned, I'm inclined to agree with Annika.



Reread my posts Tenni, I do not contend humans are bi as a default that is an incorrect paraphrase. I said born Bi and that does not mean ARE bi. Read my last reply to Annika as well.

In terms of the BJ thing well a mouth is a mouth now ain't it :eek:

[tenni]

oh...damn another funny gone...destroyed...next you'll say that there is no Santa Claus...:eek::rolleyes:..lol

I did think that they would have had to sign a waiver before the videotaping even began and who knows what was in the fine print. I wondered about it but just figured once they signed the waiver even before the videotaping began and so tough luck. They are young guys and so who knows. They may be all actors or just suckers who signed a waiver. It does seem to follow a pattern though. I've only looked at the promos.

I didn't mention any US political party ?

Just4 re: post #62
Sorry, I left out the "born " part. I'm still preferring the word "born with a neutral sexual orientation" as it makes more sense to me as someone who does not adhere to Freudian explanations but Developmental Psych models.

[just4mefc]

oh...damn another funny gone...destroyed...next you'll say that there is no Santa Claus...:eek::rolleyes:..lol

I did think that they would have had to sign a waiver before the videotaping even began and who knows what was in the fine print. I wondered about it but just figured once they signed the waiver even before the videotaping began and so tough luck. They are young guys and so who knows. They may be all actors or just suckers who signed a waiver. It does seem to follow a pattern though. I've only looked at the promos.

I didn't mention any US political party ?

Just4 re: post #62
Sorry, I left out the "born " part. I'm still preferring the word "born with a neutral sexual orientation" as it makes more sense to me as someone who does not adhere to Freudian explanations but Developmental Psych models.

Ah I too like developmental Psych. But I can not ignore the Bonobos argument nor completely throw out Freud et all. I have no problem using the unformed block metaphor but I do think the block STARTS Bi not neutral. To me neutral imply's a certain nothingness But even baby's feel sexual pleasure so neutral does not seem to fit very well. :2cents:

[just4mefc]

oh...damn another funny gone...destroyed...next you'll say that there is no Santa Claus...:eek::rolleyes:..lol

I did think that they would have had to sign a waiver before the videotaping even began and who knows what was in the fine print. I wondered about it but just figured once they signed the waiver even before the videotaping began and so tough luck. They are young guys and so who knows. They may be all actors or just suckers who signed a waiver. It does seem to follow a pattern though. I've only looked at the promos.

I didn't mention any US political party ?

Just4 re: post #62
Sorry, I left out the "born " part. I'm still preferring the word "born with a neutral sexual orientation" as it makes more sense to me as someone who does not adhere to Freudian explanations but Developmental Psych models.

Oh btw Tenni, Angela is your same stalker with a different name. In case you missed it. :rolleyes: Remember roses are red, violets are blue, Angela has multi personality disorder and so does Angela. :bigrin: