Thread: Why aren't most people at least a little bit bisexual? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030754
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
I started a thread here earlier about why exclusive heterosexuality would be the norm from an evolutionary perspective but this thread isn't about that. This is about what goes on in a person's head and about why, unless someone is already in a monogamous relationship or believes it is morally wrong, anyone would not want to at least try having a sexual experience or a relationship with a different sex than the one they have focused their attention on already.
I'm 29 and have only been with men. I would really like to know what it is like to be with a woman but I'm probably too shy and lazy to try (men are just so easy to sleep with). Why aren't most "gay" men the same? As long as gays can have all the tolerance and acceptance and gay marriage that we want, what's stopping us from also experimenting with the ladies when we're not in a monogamous relationship with a guy?
Same thing with straight people. Let's say a straight person grows up without homophobia or much sexual repression at all. I know lots of young people like this. They are fervent supporters of gay rights, are completely comfortable with their gay friends, don't mind at all that gay people think they are hot, and don't worry that if they get all emotional and cuddly with friends of the same sex that they'll be perceived as gay (as if that was a bad thing). But most of them don't try any same-sex sex or relationships out. Why?
It's almost like saying, "I won't have any friends of the same sex because all my friends are of the opposite sex and I like the opposite sex better for friendship." (Or the same with having only same-sex friends).
Missing out on sexual intimacy with one half of the human population is not like missing out on sex on an airplane or some other fetish or fantasy. It's denying oneself a deeper understanding of what so much of human culture has been talking about. It's also missing out on a better understanding of how one sex or another - even one's own - functions sexually, romantically, and emotionally. So it basically seems like a win-win for most people to not set limits on themselves and just be bisexual until they find one person they want to be in a monogamous relationship with - if that ever happens.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I can of course only speak for myself, but the reason I've never had sex with a woman is that I've never felt the pull of attraction to a woman the way I've felt it toward various men.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
My attraction is simply in one direction. I've no desire to try anything else. I've contemplated the why and determined that there simply exists no pull, no desire.
I disagree that I am "missing out," it isn't like food.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It's almost like saying, "I won't have any friends of the same sex because all my friends are of the opposite sex and I like the opposite sex better for friendship." (Or the same with having only same-sex friends).
My gut reaction is to say, "It's NOT like that at all (for me)" but I'm struggling to articulate why exactly.
Actually maybe it is the same in the sense that in I would pursue a friendship based on a positive desire to be friends with that person not just on the non-negative no-reason-not-to. But as I say that I realise that there are people I'm quite close friends with which started off in more general 'friendliness' and maybe the problem is that there's less gradation between non-sexual and sexual activity. Which means you're more likely to reach a definite point of decision i.e. "do I want to have sex with this person?" and act appropriately.
Whereas "do I want to be friends with this person?" probably doesn't come up in the same way. In fact in my experience it only comes up in a negative way, say if you found out some serious flaw, or that they were unpopular with other friends or family in a way that would be awkward.
That probably still all sounds a bit vague.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Friendship = relationship.
Sex =\= relationship
That is one factor. Even should one only have sex within a relationship, friendship is a different dynamic.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
What RuthW said (mutatis mutandis with the gender of our particular attractors and attractees). It might well be morally improving for me to have sex with a chap but to my sure and certain knowledge I have only ever fancied two of them. Where the ladies are concerned, OTOH, we are strictly talking sands on the sea shore, and all that jazz.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why don't gay men and lesbians try out women and blokes, respectively. Wouldn't this lead to broadening of mind among our homosexualist brethren. Oh wait, I've just been right wing and offensive. I am Nigel Farage! Hear me roar!
Less facetiously most of us heterosexuals mostly fancy women (or, checking my privilege, men if we are women). Most homosexuals fancy members of the same sex. If it's not depravity in your case, I'm guessing it's pretty much not depravity in ours.
Posted by Lori (# 9456) on
:
If sex is just sex to someone and sex is just sex to someone else, then maybe those someones can just experiment: see how it feels, like or dislike, move on. Regardless of gender, regardless of age, regardless of ... well, anything: interests, friendship, communication (or lack thereof), or individual sexual attractions too - not just body shape or face shape, but also soft or rough, do this or do that.
Personally, though, I don't operate like that. I don't really understand staunch heterosexuality (except for religious reasons), and that's presumably because I'm (female and) bisexual (men, men, men in my younger years; then 33 years living with women; 2 years now married to a man) - but I have no desire to experiment. There are lots of categories of people (whether racial or situational) that I've never slept with but I don't want to 'just try it'.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Missing out on sexual intimacy with one half of the human population is not like missing out on sex on an airplane or some other fetish or fantasy. It's denying oneself a deeper understanding of what so much of human culture has been talking about.
But it is a bit like that. There are countries and cultures that are far bigger than my own - but I've never 'experienced' those people as lovers. Am I really denying myself a deeper understanding of them? No, I don't think that I'm denying myself that. It's just it has never happened. No more than it has happened that I had a partner with, say, one leg or with sixteen children. I'm sure that one-legged folk with sixteen children are fascinating and sexy people too, but I can't experience everything and basically I don't want to.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
What an odd question.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
How is it odd, AO?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
It's odd because the OP gives the impression that sexuality is akin to experimenting with food. I don't have to be attracted to garlic to try it (I hate it, BTW) but as far as sexuality is concerned I'd have to be attracted to it before I doinked it, so to speak.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I agree AO. Though I would add one cannot be certain unless one has explored the possibility. Not the the extent of physical exploration, mind, but mental exploration.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
What RuthW said (mutatis mutandis with the gender of our particular attractors and attractees). It might well be morally improving for me to have sex with a chap but to my sure and certain knowledge I have only ever fancied two of them. Where the ladies are concerned, OTOH, we are strictly talking sands on the sea shore, and all that jazz.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why don't gay men and lesbians try out women and blokes, respectively. Wouldn't this lead to broadening of mind among our homosexualist brethren. Oh wait, I've just been right wing and offensive. I am Nigel Farage! Hear me roar!
Less facetiously most of us heterosexuals mostly fancy women (or, checking my privilege, men if we are women). Most homosexuals fancy members of the same sex. If it's not depravity in your case, I'm guessing it's pretty much not depravity in ours.
Did you read my OP? I'm a man. I've only ever had sex and relationships with men. I think that there's an important part of life that I am not experiencing because I have not also had these experiences with women. I just don't really feel worthy of taking up a woman's time or subjecting a woman to my rather awful body and personality. Men are horny selfish bastards so they can have me if they want. But if I manage to become a better person, I think it would be interesting to develop a sexual relationship with a woman, if any woman on the planet would be willing to do so with me (and that's a big if).
Some people put sex on a pedestal. Therefore, once you enter lifelong monogamous sexual relationship with the right person, male or female, those people think that you don't need to worry about anything else. That's fine. I just think that there are a lot of people who claim to be 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, who don't have any particular religious reason to avoid sex with either sex, and who don't think that sex is on a pedestal at all. For such people sex isn't just a handshake or a snack - it's deep and meaningful, too. So, for these people with sex not on a pedestal, why do they feel so solidly in their monosexual orientation?
Maybe if I had sexual fantasies and thoughts about women I would feel more comfortable in saying that I'm bisexual and other people just aren't. But I don't have those thoughts about women. There are plenty of beautiful or smoking hot women in the world - and I am not turned off by the thought of having sex with them at all - but my safe mental orgasm place has pretty much always been with men. In spite of that, I still think sex and maybe even a relationship with a woman would be great. Maybe not a monogamous marriage, but lots of people don't want that either. Would I still have sex and relationships with men? Of course! I'm married to a man right now who knows all about this. He was married to a woman and doesn't want to ever have sex with a woman again. I have no idea why. He doesn't think any other man would want to have sex with him. I just have to find young guys who want him and then I hope I can find some pasty nerdy clean cut white collar slightly overweight tall guys (sigh) who like me and maybe also some righteous lady friends (in bed).
The eccentricities of my situation aside, it is the norm for a huge segment of society now to have quite a few years of sex before marriage that involves either strict serial monogamy or something a bit more multivariable. People can talk all they like about "adolescent experimentation" or being a "lesbian until graduation" (LUG). I'm talking about pursuing honest, open, loving, caring sex and/or relationships with whatever sex you aren't usually thinking about (if you're not bisexual to begin with) and seeing if it isn't something that you might want to be open to in the future.
What really bothers me is that some people read Romans 1 to say that it's fine for gay people to have sex with the same sex but that what the pagans were doing that was wrong was straight people experimenting with homosexuality for the fun of it. All I have to say to that is - grrr. Face it, sexual friction is either ok with people who have similar in and out parts to you or it isn't. I say it is, and it's also ok with different in and out parts. Why not broaden the parts that you can explore? (And broaden the kinds of parts that you allow to explore you?)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Until we find out what causes people's sexualities at all, asking why they aren't some other way may be interesting as something to discuss over beers, but it really is unanswerable with our current understanding.
If we knew a physical mechanism that controlled or influenced sexuality, and all the science said that we would expect that mechanism to produce situation X, and it really produced situation Y, then we can ask why not X. We're nowhere near that now with sexuality. So this whole question strikes me as a meaningless exercise in jaw-flapping.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
More and more, studies show this stuff is more physiological than psychological.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If we knew a physical mechanism that controlled or influenced sexuality, and all the science said that we would expect that mechanism to produce situation X, and it really produced situation Y, then we can ask why not X. We're nowhere near that now with sexuality. So this whole question strikes me as a meaningless exercise in jaw-flapping.
I hope you are not talking chromosomes here.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Kinsey scale yet.
It is a scale of degrees of gayness that goes from 0 to 6 where 0 = fully heterosexual, 6 = fully homosexual and 1 to 5 are degrees of bisexuality.
Why there are more 0s and 6s compared to the 1 to 5s is not explained.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
As a teenager I did experiment. My friend (who turned out to be gay) and I had a romp under the covers - but it did nothing for me so I concluded I must be straight.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Why aren't most people at least a little bit bisexual?
I thought the modern view was that we're all a bit bisexual? That doesn't mean everyone is inclined to 'experiment' - although increasing numbers probably do. There are still social and religious constraints against bisexual experimentation; SSM, for all the radical support it's received, promotes monogamy not variety.
From my point of view, being a Christian means I don't need to add extra sexual complications to my life, which is fine by me. But others take a different view.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The obvious answer is about evolution, isn't it? A species which is going to reproduce satisfactorily, requires an efficient method of reproduction. Most members of that species will conform to that method.
I am not good enough at mathematics, but some bright spark may be able to work out if being bisexual may be less reproductively efficient than heterosexual.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The obvious answer is about evolution, isn't it?
Not as clearly as one might think. There are a number of species which exhibit behaviour such as the OP proposes and manage to breed quite well, the mallard being an obvious example.
But conflating behaviour between species is problematic, especially comparing to humans.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If we knew a physical mechanism that controlled or influenced sexuality, and all the science said that we would expect that mechanism to produce situation X, and it really produced situation Y, then we can ask why not X. We're nowhere near that now with sexuality. So this whole question strikes me as a meaningless exercise in jaw-flapping.
I hope you are not talking chromosomes here.
You mean the X and Y? Nah, I'm a math teacher. Those are just variables.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Note that I'm asking about why gay people aren't tempted to try it out with the opposite sex just as much as I am asking about the other way around.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
You might as well ask why people who like chocolate, don't like chocolate. After all, they could give it a go!
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The obvious answer is about evolution, isn't it? A species which is going to reproduce satisfactorily, requires an efficient method of reproduction. Most members of that species will conform to that method.
I am not good enough at mathematics, but some bright spark may be able to work out if being bisexual may be less reproductively efficient than heterosexual.
Ant species seem to do just fine even though in most species a very small percentage of individuals reproduce.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Well, when one human being can lay thousands of eggs a day the way that an ant queen can, then one or two of the species reproducing could conserve the species, but as we tend to produce live young singly with occasional multiple births and it takes us most of a year to do that, only a few of the population reproducing would have the species die out rapidly.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You might as well ask why people who like chocolate, don't like chocolate. After all, they could give it a go!
Not a good analogy - many foods are an acquired taste, but once acquired enjoyed very much!
[ 11. May 2014, 06:09: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You might as well ask why people who like chocolate, don't like chocolate. After all, they could give it a go!
Not a good analogy - many foods are an acquired taste, but once acquired enjoyed very much!
But that's not what I said. I said if you like something, have a go at not liking it. Maybe some people can do that.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I used to take sugar in my tea - I weaned myself off if pretty quickly, now I don't like it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I used to take sugar in my tea - I weaned myself off if pretty quickly, now I don't like it.
Me too. I did the same with meat, which mainly makes me gag now. It's so meaty!
I suppose in some situations, e.g. prison, some people do jump ship sexually. Boarding schools maybe, and the House of Commons.
Oh, I forgot, I did it with Christianity as well.
[ 11. May 2014, 07:49: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Do men really jump ship in prison? It seems to be more complicated than that, although Kinsey reports quite high rates (in 1948).
I would be surprised if teenage boys were reporting those rates of homosexual experiences in the mixed communities most are growing up in. I have more experience of pressure on girls to be sexually active in teenage years and gay is such an insult that it's a rare teenager who identifies as gay.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I suppose you could say that there is quite a lot of conservatism in people's sexual tastes. If you like women's bodies, and are not particularly bothered about men's dicks, or vice versa, there is no pressure to reverse this. As to why our tastes are relatively conservative, you could advance psychological, social, and biological causes, well, why not all of them. The fact that there are people who can butter their bread on both sides, doesn't imply that we all want to, or in fact, can.
The food analogies are interesting, but perhaps, like most analogies, unsatisfactory.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Missing out on sexual intimacy with one half of the human population is not like missing out on sex on an airplane or some other fetish or fantasy. It's denying oneself a deeper understanding of what so much of human culture has been talking about. It's also missing out on a better understanding of how one sex or another - even one's own - functions sexually, romantically, and emotionally.
So what do you make of asexual people then? By this logic, they must experience the ultimate in deprivation and lack of depth of understanding.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
Your question seems to imply that people want to have sex with "men" or with "women" or with some other category of person. It seems to assume that people are something to be experimented with. It seems, to me, to be deeply objectifying.
You say that "Missing out on sexual intimacy with one half of the human population" seems like a bad thing. But no one can be intimate, sexually or any other way, with three or four billion people. We all necessarily miss out on sexual intimacy, not with half of the human population, but with virtually all of it.
Unless, of course, you think that any person is pretty much interchangeable with any other person, in the same way that one steak is so much like any other steak that you would know by trying one whether you would like any of them. That idea seems repugnant to me.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Well, when one human being can lay thousands of eggs a day the way that an ant queen can, then one or two of the species reproducing could conserve the species, but as we tend to produce live young singly with occasional multiple births and it takes us most of a year to do that, only a few of the population reproducing would have the species die out rapidly.
Reproduction is more than just birth. A baby on its own cannot survive for long (unlike let us say some frogs). A baby with just one caregiver to raise it to adulthood (e.g., the mother) also is unlikely to survive (think no community). A baby with just two caregivers is also unlikely to survive (again no community). A baby within a larger community had a much better chance along with other babies within the community. So how are such communities knitted together? Extended blood family, pair bonding, family (non-blood) connections, other. Different human cultures seem to have different methods. Does having gay relatives help in some cases (e.g., by providing aunts and uncles who don't have their own children and will provide care)? We don't know yet.
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Your question seems to imply that people want to have sex with "men" or with "women" or with some other category of person. It seems to assume that people are something to be experimented with. It seems, to me, to be deeply objectifying.
My sentiments exactly, expressed far better than I could have done it.
A bisexual acquaintance once said to me that surely we fall in love with a person regardless of what bits they have in their underwear, and I completely understood that. A number of my girlfriends that I've repeated it to also understood; a couple didn't and started to look decidedly uneasy. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I dislike the analogy between food and sex, although it's often drawn and I think we have the book "The Joy of Sex" partly to thank for that with its sections on Starters, Mains and Afters. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Nen - generally dishing up what's quick and easy and has been appreciated previously.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Your question seems to imply that people want to have sex with "men" or with "women" or with some other category of person. It seems to assume that people are something to be experimented with. It seems, to me, to be deeply objectifying.
You say that "Missing out on sexual intimacy with one half of the human population" seems like a bad thing. But no one can be intimate, sexually or any other way, with three or four billion people. We all necessarily miss out on sexual intimacy, not with half of the human population, but with virtually all of it.
Unless, of course, you think that any person is pretty much interchangeable with any other person, in the same way that one steak is so much like any other steak that you would know by trying one whether you would like any of them. That idea seems repugnant to me.
Sex =\= intimacy. Sex can just be sex. It needn't be objectification or harming if both/all parties agree to the parameters.
That said, I do not agree with this:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
A bisexual acquaintance once said to me that surely we fall in love with a person regardless of what bits they have in their underwear, and I completely understood that. A number of my girlfriends that I've repeated it to also understood; a couple didn't and started to look decidedly uneasy.
I've had offers from multiple directions: however, regardless of the beauty of the body or beauty of the soul, the bits in the knickers matter to me. It isn't that I find any particular bits repulsive, it is that I only find some attractive.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
I once had a discussion as part of a larger group with a Psychologist from Manchester University who was strongly of the opinion that we are all bisexual. In part, he used the argument that given the right circumstances e.g. a prison or boarding school, blokes will end up having sexual encounters with other blokes.
I felt I was in a bit of a no win situation, because by denying any circumstance where I could see myself being attracted to another man, I was either 'in denial', or hadn't experienced enough situations like prison to justifying being so adamant.
Suffice to say, if blokes just aren't sexually attractive to you, then it's not any sort of sacrifice not to have sex with one. We only feel a sense of lost opportunities for that which we wanted in the first place. Even curiously is only an issue when what might be discovered could also be agreeable in some way.
[ 11. May 2014, 17:35: Message edited by: Yonatan ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
But that article I linked to, reviewing the literature, said that not all men did end up in homosexual relationships in prison, The numbers found varied from something like 17% to 40% from the different research projects they'd found, so I'm unconvinced your psychologist is right. (I'd have to go and read it to find the exact figures)
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
We all necessarily miss out on sexual intimacy, not with half of the human population, but with virtually all of it.
Unless, of course, you think that any person is pretty much interchangeable with any other person, in the same way that one steak is so much like any other steak that you would know by trying one whether you would like any of them. That idea seems repugnant to me.
Sex =\= intimacy. Sex can just be sex. It needn't be objectification or harming if both/all parties agree to the parameters.
Sex, even if it's just sex, is always between persons. I think it is repugnant to say, "I want to try having sex with a [fill in the blank] to see what it's like." That's not treating the person as a person. That's treating them as a category. Saying that it's "just sex" doesn't make it any less repugnant.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Both your posts are very well put Josephine and are the best answer so far to the OP.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
We all necessarily miss out on sexual intimacy, not with half of the human population, but with virtually all of it.
Unless, of course, you think that any person is pretty much interchangeable with any other person, in the same way that one steak is so much like any other steak that you would know by trying one whether you would like any of them. That idea seems repugnant to me.
Sex =\= intimacy. Sex can just be sex. It needn't be objectification or harming if both/all parties agree to the parameters.
Sex, even if it's just sex, is always between persons. I think it is repugnant to say, "I want to try having sex with a [fill in the blank] to see what it's like." That's not treating the person as a person. That's treating them as a category. Saying that it's "just sex" doesn't make it any less repugnant.
This is not what I am saying. I do not agree with the OP. I do not agree with the treating of people as a category.
I am not fond of the mythos which surrounds sex, I think it potentially exacerbates problems by inflating expectations. However, that is a discussion for a different thread.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Sex, even if it's just sex, is always between persons. I think it is repugnant to say, "I want to try having sex with a [fill in the blank] to see what it's like." That's not treating the person as a person. That's treating them as a category. Saying that it's "just sex" doesn't make it any less repugnant.
This is not what I am saying. I do not agree with the OP. I do not agree with the treating of people as a category.
I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. I thought that you were saying that, as long as both people were cool with it, trying out sex by category was just fine.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Equating bisexuality with sexual experimentation is grossly biphobic.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I don't interpret the OP as saying that, exactly, Jade.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I think the basic problem is thinking that, because there's some kind of 'scale', the usual expectation would be a bit of a normal distribution with most of us in the middle, and therefore there's something weird about most of being at one of the ends of the 'scale'.
I don't think that it's true, in biological terms, that there's a scale. Many of our genetic traits aren't scales, they're switches. On or off. There's a whole array of switches that are meant to be turned on or off on the basis of whether the sperm entering the egg carries an X chromosome or a Y chromosome. In a relatively small proportion of the population, not all the switches that are usually flicked in response to this event end up being flicked.
And while sexuality is not wholly genetic, it does have a strong genetic component. Bisexuality may well only be probable with certain combinations of the switches, and that combination may be relatively uncommon.
You only get a normal distribution, centred around the middle, if there's a single central 'target' that the system is tending to aim towards. Our biological systems have two 'targets', at either end of the supposed scale, and for the vast majority of us our genome is pushing us towards one end of that scale or the other.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
See I don't see how bisexuality can be completely rare, and I do think it's somewhat a spectrum. I am one of many women I know who find at least some women very attractive. Like many bi women I know, out of a random group of people, I am more often attracted to men than women. So without disagreeing about the switches, I do think it's somewhat a scale.
However, I think that in our current culture and society, it's not at all surprising that very few people think of themselves as bi even if many of us are. For one thing, I didn't realize I was bi until after I was married or dating Bullfrog (male). And I didn't realize it because my culture told me I should like men, and I DO find men attractive, so the fact that B and K (female) are super-attractive too? I told myself it was just aesthetic appreciation, obviously. Heck when I told my sister I was bi, she laughed. Which I have teased her about since she came out as a lesbian.
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on
:
When I came out as bisexual to my mother the first time, her response was, "Oh sweetie, be reasonable--that doesn't exist." She was, I think, just as incorrect as folks who claim it's universal.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Missing out on sexual intimacy with one half of the human population is not like missing out on sex on an airplane or some other fetish or fantasy. It's denying oneself a deeper understanding of what so much of human culture has been talking about. It's also missing out on a better understanding of how one sex or another - even one's own - functions sexually, romantically, and emotionally.
So what do you make of asexual people then? By this logic, they must experience the ultimate in deprivation and lack of depth of understanding.
Asexuals aren't missing out because they don't want to have sex with anyone. I am talking about wanting to have sex, but only wanting to do so with half the adult human population. With asexuality, though there often is still a desire for platonic or romantic but asexual partnership. If this is directed at only one sex and not another, that would seem just as odd to me.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Equating bisexuality with sexual experimentation is grossly biphobic.
Some people know that they are bisexual without ever having had sex with anyone. I, for one, have no idea what I am other than that I am not straight. I have never had any romantic sexual or other experience with a woman and that is why I am asking all of this.
I wouldn't call myself biphobic but rather monophobic.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Your question seems to imply that people want to have sex with "men" or with "women" or with some other category of person. It seems to assume that people are something to be experimented with. It seems, to me, to be deeply objectifying.
You say that "Missing out on sexual intimacy with one half of the human population" seems like a bad thing. But no one can be intimate, sexually or any other way, with three or four billion people. We all necessarily miss out on sexual intimacy, not with half of the human population, but with virtually all of it.
Unless, of course, you think that any person is pretty much interchangeable with any other person, in the same way that one steak is so much like any other steak that you would know by trying one whether you would like any of them. That idea seems repugnant to me.
All of the arguments you are making about how special sex is I think could also be made about adult friendship. Sex to me is just a way of being friends, and marriage is a form of friendship that often involves sex. Some people only have one or a couple of friends in their whole lives. I talk about experimentation not because I think it is necessary or even necessarily a good thing - and people can certainly be objectified and are everyday by just about everyone. Rather, I find that by saying that you are flat out not going to have sex with one sex or other, you are sorting people into categories.
In other words, I acknowledge that everyone has their preferences but what I don't understand is a strict denial to have sex with any category of nonrelated adult. In other words, I agree with you that it's wrong to label, sort, objectify, etc. Rather than "experiment" I should say that I see no good reason why anyone single would not be open to fall in love (and/or lust) with anyone else regardless of sex (or race or anything else).
If people would stop saying that they are straight or gay and would just be honest and say that they are choosing to not even consider the possibility of sex with one sex or other, than that reveal how limiting the whole thing feels. Sexual orientation, no matter how unchangeable it may be, is just an orientation and not a determination. Gay men are not made to have sex with men any more than women in general are made to have sex with men.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
That last pRagraph is a whole lot of confusion, stonespring.
The necessary chopping to properly address it is more than I am willing on my phone.
So, I don't think there is a dishonest in claiming an orientation. I don't think saying 'choosing not to consider' is a proper way to view this. I love my close friends greatly. I love being with them, sharing a laugh, a touch; sharing a moment. But the bits make the sexual attraction. Just how I am. Just how many of us are.
I do not see sex as inherently a special thing as some do, but I still see attraction as a component. And experience tells me I do not have control in my attractions. But they always pull in the same direction.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Rather, I find that by saying that you are flat out not going to have sex with one sex or other, you are sorting people into categories.
Yeah? We do it all the time. Everyone does it.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Rather than "experiment" I should say that I see no good reason why anyone single would not be open to fall in love (and/or lust) with anyone else regardless of sex (or race or anything else).
I don't understand this. It fails to understand attraction. I don't do it with men because I'm not attracted to men. Men are disgusting. I'm not open to it because the very thought disgusts me.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
If people would stop saying that they are straight or gay and would just be honest and say that they are choosing to not even consider the possibility of sex with one sex or other, than that reveal how limiting the whole thing feels.
Yet again, this fails to understand attraction.
[ 15. May 2014, 03:12: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The thread to date:
Stonespring: Everybody's bi, they just don't admit it.
Everybody: Well, no, not really.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't understand this. It fails to understand attraction. I don't do it with men because I'm not attracted to men.
Quite.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Men are disgusting. I'm not open to it because the very thought disgusts me.
Um,hmmmm. Disgusts is a bit revealing. Not to drag out an old trope, I don't agree with it, but disgust does imply more than simply lack of attraction.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Men are disgusting. I'm surprised women consent to go anywhere near us, let alone sleep with us.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thread to date:
Stonespring: Everybody's bi, they just don't admit it.
Everybody: Well, no, not really.
I don't even care if people call themselves bi or not - as long as people admit that they are not entirely straight or gay.
I fit the gay stereotype to a T. Distant father, smothering mother. I played with dolls as a kid and played dress-up with my mom's clothes and jewelry. I'm not athletic and became fluent in gay mannerisms at a young age even before I even knew that I liked guys. I came out at 16 before I even so much had held hands with anyone and since then have only been in relationships and/or had sex with guys. I don't fantasize about women. Lesbian porn does nothing for me, and when I see straight porn, it's all about the guys. And yet the curiosity to know what straight sexual and romantic interaction is like has always been pretty strong in me. So even if I'm close to a Kinsey 6, I'm not a Kinsey 6. I don't think Kinsey 6's or 0's exist.
I think that a lot of whatever it is that makes straights unattracted to the same sex and gays unattracted to the opposite sex is learned from society - and there is a lot of social pressure for gays to not like the opposite sex so don't even think that there isn't.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I don't even care if people call themselves bi or not - as long as people admit that they are not entirely straight or gay.
I fit the gay stereotype to a T. Distant father, smothering mother. I played with dolls as a kid and played dress-up with my mom's clothes and jewelry. I'm not athletic and became fluent in gay mannerisms at a young age even before I even knew that I liked guys.
Mate, you're going to be waiting a long time for some of us. The more you write, the more it sounds like you may need some 21st century help.
The stereotypes you mention are laughable. You're 20 years younger than I am, but spouting psychobabble from the 1940s and 50s. If it were true then my brother, lover of pink and fantastic cook from an early age, totally uninterested in sport, with a dad who disliked him and a mum who adored him (these are my parents too) should be gayer than the Rocky Horror Show. Instead, he's straighter than a ruler, married for 25 years, with 4 kids.
Absolutes are simply not applicable to sexuality. I've mentioned this before, but I was heavily socialised as a feminine girl, in a very conservative home. We weren't allowed access to the radio, newspapers or television. I hadn't ever heard of homosexuality until I went to university - and I immediately knew it applied to me. Up until that time, I thought my life was going to be as a single person, as I had no interest in boys AT ALL. I couldn't see any sort of intimate companionship being part of my life because I didn't know about lesbians. I'm not sure how I, as you say, "learned" to become a lesbian, because from my point of view the concept arrived like a bolt from heaven.
As I have also said before, I've always had more male friends than female, so I've had plenty of opportunities to check my assumptions about my own sexuality.
This thread has been seriously getting up my nose, but I finally got annoyed enough to post!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thread to date:
Stonespring: Everybody's bi, they just don't admit it.
Everybody: Well, no, not really.
I don't even care if people call themselves bi or not - as long as people admit that they are not entirely straight or gay.
Sorry, I'll do it again.
Stonespring: People are not entirely straight or gay.
Everybody: Well, actually, I am.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I don't even care if people call themselves bi or not - as long as people admit that they are not entirely straight or gay.
Why? One it does not seem to be true and two why do you care?
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that a lot of whatever it is that makes straights unattracted to the same sex and gays unattracted to the opposite sex is learned from society - and there is a lot of social pressure for gays to not like the opposite sex so don't even think that there isn't.
Well, For those not fully gay or straight, I can see this. And sexuality is not completely constrained by biology. Don't think you are correct about everyone.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I don't even care if people call themselves bi or not - as long as people admit that they are not entirely straight or gay.
I'll agree with lilBuddha too--why should you care? And what does that even mean, entirely straight or gay? It's not like they can run a blood test.
[ 16. May 2014, 01:13: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thread to date:
Stonespring: Everybody's bi, they just don't admit it.
Everybody: Well, no, not really.
I don't even care if people call themselves bi or not - as long as people admit that they are not entirely straight or gay.
Surely you should be able to accept that your experience doesn't generalise? I've never found men attractive. I recall hearing, growing up, how all boys go through a phase of being attracted to other boys and just being bewildered. This isn't about gender norms, I always wanted (and now have) long hair and played with dolls as well as lego. I am however, only sexually attracted to women and, to my recollection, always have been. When we are talking about attraction, which is all about feeling, how do you distinguish between what someone perceives themselves to be feeling and what they are "actually" feeling, as you would seem to be doing.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Legos are fine for boys, but they will turn a girl into a lesbian. Which is why Lego had to do this.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I don't even care if people call themselves bi or not - as long as people admit that they are not entirely straight or gay.
I fit the gay stereotype to a T. Distant father, smothering mother. I played with dolls as a kid and played dress-up with my mom's clothes and jewelry. I'm not athletic and became fluent in gay mannerisms at a young age even before I even knew that I liked guys. I came out at 16 before I even so much had held hands with anyone and since then have only been in relationships and/or had sex with guys. I don't fantasize about women. Lesbian porn does nothing for me, and when I see straight porn, it's all about the guys. And yet the curiosity to know what straight sexual and romantic interaction is like has always been pretty strong in me. So even if I'm close to a Kinsey 6, I'm not a Kinsey 6. I don't think Kinsey 6's or 0's exist.
I think that a lot of whatever it is that makes straights unattracted to the same sex and gays unattracted to the opposite sex is learned from society - and there is a lot of social pressure for gays to not like the opposite sex so don't even think that there isn't.
Well, sad and disappointing though it may be, not every male you pass in the street is hot and raring to get into your pants. You'll just have to get over that assessment of your desirability to males in general.
You quote Mousethief, but appear not to have read his post, nor those of people such as Orfeo. Over a life much longer than yours, I have never felt sexually attracted to another man. Not even to a cousin with whom I spent a lot of time growing up, and with whom I'm still closer than anyone in the world apart from Madame and Dlet. So why should I admit to something that is just not true? And I'd be very surprised, for the reasons Orfeo gave, that it's just not true for the overwhelming majority of people.
And in spades what Arabella said about your stereotype and the conclusions you draw from it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thread to date:
Stonespring: Everybody's bi, they just don't admit it.
Everybody: Well, no, not really.
I don't even care if people call themselves bi or not - as long as people admit that they are not entirely straight or gay.
Surely you should be able to accept that your experience doesn't generalise? I've never found men attractive. I recall hearing, growing up, how all boys go through a phase of being attracted to other boys and just being bewildered. This isn't about gender norms, I always wanted (and now have) long hair and played with dolls as well as lego. I am however, only sexually attracted to women and, to my recollection, always have been. When we are talking about attraction, which is all about feeling, how do you distinguish between what someone perceives themselves to be feeling and what they are "actually" feeling, as you would seem to be doing.
Me too. Why do you need me to admit to something that isn't true - that I ever feel the slightest sexual attraction to males. I just - don't.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Of course gay stereotypes have nothing to do with reality and Freud is full of nonsense! The fact that you guys get upset about that is because many of you have dealt with pretty nasty homophobia and biphobia unlike lucky young me. Ignore the whole dolls and parents thing. I can't get off from looking at at girls or thinking about them. It just doesn't work. And there are lots of guys (mainly the ones that everyone else think are attractive) that I'm not attracted to either. But that doesn't mean that I couldn't enjoy having sex with any consenting adult, or that I might not even have a wonderful sexual relationship with any consenting adult.
I just don't see the point of anyone saying no to possible sexual and romantic encounters or relationships that may or may not happen in the future. If someone flirts with them and they aren't interested, by all means say so and move on. But maybe one day you might be interested. Or someone may not flirt with you but you may just wind up with someone for skem reason or other. Why define yourself by what you don't do? That's my whole point.
Straights seem to feel secure in their straightness because it lets them have same-sex social situations that are sex free. The same with gays and the opposite sex. I think that this is a bad thing. People just need to acknowledge that as long as people are with other no related adults, sex is a possibility. Sex is just part of how people interact, just like saying hello or goodbye. Some people have monogamy or celibacy to providers structure to their sexivez, but that doesn't mean that their interactions with any other adult aren't sexually charged. Our genitals and our stomachs rule every decision we make. Our brains come in at a distant third, and our "hearts" are a fuzzy concept that tries to combine the better parts of our genitals, stomachs, and brains. Just don't define yourself by what you dislike or think you won't ever do. If you love women, say so. That has nothing to do with what you don't love.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
people just need to acknowledge that as long as people are with other no related adults, sex is a possibility. Sex is just part of how people interact, just like saying hello or goodbye.
No, no it isn't. We are not bonobos. Social structure in humans really suggests you are incorrect.
BTW, I do not define myself by what I do not do. There is a label for my sexual preference, but it describes me, not defines me.
It is not that I am not open to other things, it is that there exists no desire. For most humans, desire is a prerequisite for consensual sex.
People outside of my attraction parameters do not disgust me there is no repulsion. Neither do they excite me. Why should I care that they do not?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
I also am pretty convinced that only ugly people who hate themselves would ever think of having sex with me. My husband is an exception but that is because he is incur ably insane.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Our genitals and our stomachs rule every decision we make. Our brains come in at a distant third, and our "hearts" are a fuzzy concept that tries to combine the better parts of our genitals, stomachs, and brains.
What an interesting life you must live! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I am interested in both food and sex, and yet there's no way I want them featuring that prominently in my interactions with other human beings. I am much more interested in their thinking--witness the fact that I post on the Ship, where neither sex nor food plays a role. Heck, I don't even know most of youse guys' genders. Nor do I care.
This is ad hominem, I'm sure, but I suspect you are very young. Sex naturally looks like a lot bigger deal in one's teens and twenties than it does over the course of a whole life. Things get better balanced later on.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
So the definition of bisexual we're talking about here is "hasn't considered and rejected every single member of one sex"? If you define bisexuality like humpty dumpty then it's no wonder you think everyone's bisexual. Fortunately, in the real world words have broadly agreed definitions - they don't just mean whatever you choose them to mean.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Do men really jump ship in prison? It seems to be more complicated than that, although Kinsey reports quite high rates (in 1948).
I know that a lot of women do. It's called being 'gay for the stay'. And it goes on in spite of all the attempts to enforce PREA (the Prison Rape Elimination Act).
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Straights seem to feel secure in their straightness because it lets them have same-sex social situations that are sex free. The same with gays and the opposite sex. I think that this is a bad thing.
Why do you think this is a bad thing? What on earth would give you the idea that sex is appropriate in every relationship or context or...?
quote:
People just need to acknowledge that as long as people are with other no related adults, sex is a possibility.
No, people do not just need to acknowledge this, because this is simply not true. The vast majority of people of either sex that I interact with are eliminated from my pool of possible sexual partners because of their age, marital or relationship status, or another reason.
Unlike you, I have to constantly keep in mind the fact that no form of birth control is 100% effective and pregnancy is a possibility in most opposite sex sexual encounters and I will have primary responsibility for dealing with the consequences of an unintended pregnancy.
On the surface, that seems like it might be an argument that might help persuade me to try sexual relationships with women, but I'm simply not interested in those.
quote:
Sex is just part of how people interact, just like saying hello or goodbye.
Um, no.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Stonespring, I have had an active sex life for over 50 years. In all of that time, my fantasies, feelings and attractions have been entirely heterosexual. I think it's pretty unlikely that I'll change now - of course, I may, but I still think it's pretty unlikely. And while it's quite OK by me if you define yourself by your sexual preference, I don't and never have. It's certainly part of my identity, but there's much more to it than that. I accept that this may be because I am straight.
Your last post contains a lot of bald statements. It would be interesting to read the arguments behind these statements and to know of the evidence which may support them.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I can look at members of my own sex and see what someone of the opposite sex might find attractive in them - but I don't think that makes me in the least bisexual, merely aware of what can be attractive. Or am I deluding myself?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I can't get off from looking at at girls or thinking about them. It just doesn't work. ... But that doesn't mean that I couldn't enjoy having sex with any consenting adult, or that I might not even have a wonderful sexual relationship with any consenting adult.
I spent years trying very hard to be straight. It seems to me that you're spending a lot of time trying very hard to make yourself bisexual.
Be who you are. I mean, IF you happen to bump into that rare girl that turns you on, feel free to celebrate, shout "woohoo, I'm slightly bisexual!" and start a relationship with her.
I feel perfectly happy labelling myself as gay because I know what turns me on. I also know lots of other characteristics that tend to turn me on. I don't go around completely ruling out anyone that doesn't have those characteristics, but it'd be damn silly of me to deliberately go hang out somewhere that I know is filled entirely with people LACKING those characteristics and cross my fingers and hope that this is the night when I encounter the person who will unexpectedly sweep me off my feet and create the wonderfully romantic story that I can tell my grandchildren, right before one of them sells it as a script for a Hollywood rom-com.
I don't know if it's you I've had the conversation with before, but I know I've had the conversation with someone here about being worried 'discriminating' against people in sexual attraction. It's nonsense. Choosing a sexual partner is all ABOUT discriminating. We've become so sensitised to the idea that discrimination is bad that we've lost an understanding as to why it's bad - a why that depends on particular contexts. We're so obsessed with equality that we apply it in places it doesn't belong.
You prefer guys. Stop stressing about it and stop thinking that really, you ought to give girls a chance, to be fair. No fairness is required. You're not responsible for everyone's sexual happiness. Someone else will find all those girls attractive and offer them sexual adventures.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
To the OP.
Assuming it's not because they're backward cavepersonish drooling 'conservatives' perhaps Darwinists have claimed more ground than they might think they have and the overwhelming majority of ordinary folks (you know: those hateful spiteful bigoted racist wannabee Nazi biphobic homophobes) believe deeply (probably 'instinctively' ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
) that anything that apparently contradicts Natural Selection is aberrant behavior.
All ignorant conjecture, of course, and maybe even utterly disgusting.
Still and all, you do what you can.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Assuming it's not because they're backward cavepersonish drooling 'conservatives' perhaps Darwinists have claimed more ground than they might think they have and the overwhelming majority of ordinary folks (you know: those hateful spiteful bigoted racist wannabee Nazi biphobic homophobes) believe deeply (probably 'instinctively') that anything that apparently contradicts Natural Selection is aberrant behavior.
Which is why things like lesbian-themed pornography have never hand a wider audience among male heterosexuals.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Well, to be pedantic, many men have watched women having sex with each other, but very few have seen lesbian porn. Still a good point though.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, to be pedantic, many men have watched women having sex with each other, but very few have seen lesbian porn. Still a good point though.
Which may be why he said "lesbian-themed porn" and not "lesbian porn." Not to be pedantic. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
That is what I get for skimming posts.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
In any case I'd question whether what is termed 'girl-on-girl' porn is lesbian-themed since the (unwritten) premise is that all they need is a 'real' man to sort them out
Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on
:
To me this just reads like a variation on the theme of an awful lot of religious forum discussions between liberals and conservatives from about 15-20 years ago.
In effect, some liberals believed that everyone should have the freedom to choose, as long as what they chose didn't coincide with whatever the conservatives were advocating.
I remember one discussion on the Fish forum (anyone remember that?) where it was asserted that a woman can make her own life choices - just so long as she didn't choose to be a housewife and submit to her husband in all decisions.
How is that different from the claim that being heterosexual is OK as long as you admit that you're a bit gay?
I didn't choose my sexuality any more than a homosexual person chose theirs, and as much as I enjoy male company and a bit of male bonding, it induces absolutely no tumescence whatsoever - not even a tingle.
If anyone has a problem accepting my sexuality, aren't they simply mirroring homophobia?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
How is that different from the claim that being heterosexual is OK as long as you admit that you're a bit gay?
That's not a result of political ideology, just a basic familiarity with how common situational homosexuality is. Given the right circumstances (prison, monastery, naval vessel, boarding school, etc.) a surprisingly large number of otherwise "100% straight" people will discover they're bisexual enough to get by with the (same gendered) partners available. Not everyone, but a statistically large enough portion of the population to be studied by anthropologists/sociologists.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
If anyone has a problem accepting my sexuality, aren't they simply mirroring homophobia?
No. Because homophobia is a species of oppression, and the idea that you must be a little gay even though you claim to feel no attraction to members of your own sex isn't oppressive, merely stupid.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0