Is Bisexuality the new Gay?

Are we playing echo now?



You cannot ever ignore human biology because you are a product of it.

You are an idealist, you just don't know it. Again: implications.

Actually I'm a realist.

Apparently, we aren't arguing the same thing. I never made any statements regarding mechanism.

I'm talking about impulse.

Oh, and impulse comes from thin air does it? You don't actually believe that, do you?

Again, please read the topic fully to understand what is being discussed.

You are the only one pulling nonsense from thin air.

Aziel:

You are entitled to thoughts, yes. I, however, disagree with you. You have been echoing me now for the last several posts, and because you display no willingness to defend yourself, I am going to elucidate my position for your benefit. I am not going to be hostile at any point in this post. All facades and verisimiltudinous commentary aside, okay?



Devia:

People typically label bisexuals as merely confused individuals (in my experience). So, in that sense, a connection (albeit, perhaps not a strong one) could be made between the current bisexual conundrum and the older conundrum of the homosexuals.

I agree that this is a fair assessment of the issue in America--so as far as the thread is concerned, this is my relevant stance.

However, I am disagreeing with Aziel on a related matter, so I am going to continue . . .



1)

AXavierB:

Sexual preference isn't black and white, at least I don't think it is.

2)

Devia:

Sensual stimulation is different than aesthetic preference of either male, female, or both figures.

3)


Lelouch:

Attraction isn't an exact science, no, which is why you can't narrow sexuality down to pure "I like women" or "I like men" at all.

I agree with these three statements. I am making my argument on the presupposition of these three stances, so you may disagree with me and thus my conclusions based on any of these assertions.



Aziel, you posit:

Well I contend that attraction has next to nothing to do with biological sex, especially where intercourse is concerned.

and

Sex is not about reproducing, reproducing is about reproducing.

Before I argue these points, I also want to presuppose evolution--it is the only empirical evidence I have to rely upon and so I use it here with a staunch regard for logic and science. I make this point because, based on evidence in other posts of yours, I believe you will agree with me here.

Again, you can attack my argument by attacking evolution, at which point I would repeat my first post in the thread where I suggested that Devia take on his usual role of theologizing impertinently. However, I will continue assuming we can, for the moment, agree on the validity of evolution within the current debate (or "discussion" to keep Devia happy). I'll call evolution "presupposition 4."



MY ARGUMENT (in which I recapitulate earlier posts to some extent, sorry):

I disagree with the aforementioned posts by Aziel.

Humans are physical, biological creatures. Meaning, to create a human it takes two humans of opposite genders who--IN THE ACT OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE--offer their own genetic code which, in conception, is applied 50/50 to the new individual. It follows, and is true (I think), that everyone here is a product of two parents.

Evolutionarily, it would make sense for the sexual act to give those partaking in such action pleasure, for they continue the species, which is the ultimate drive of DNA (the only molecule that reproduces itself). The fact that each one of us began from one cell that multiplied many times and whose cells will continue to do so until death makes this refutable only on theological grounds--not on logical or empirical ones.

It then follows that it is also evolutionarily viable for people of the opposite gender to be attracted to one another and thus are willing to engage in sexual intercourse. The veracity of this statement is supported by all cultures accepting heterosexual intercourse and the absence of any purely homosexual societies.

Actually, this whole issue of "sexual orientation" is a recent concept, within the last two hundred or so years. Look at the ancient Greeks, for example.

Our culture relies heavily on its puritanical influences. Watching TV, you'll see heads getting chopped off but not a single boob. In Europe, it is exactly the opposite. Ever been to a beach over there? Any tops? No. We have this ingrained belief of "sex only for reproduction" and "not for pleasure" (although of course we're human so we do it all the time anyway)--this creates a severe stigma towards those who may physically or emotionally be attached, for one reason or another, to someone of the same gender.

I think the terminology is getting in the way of the issue actually at hand.

I disagree with assertions such as this one by Lelouch (which I imagine Aziel would agree with, based on her earlier actions and reactions):

The emotional connection isn't necessary for sexual relations. Which is why it's irrelevant in discussions of sexuality.

My response:

While most relationships have a complicated mixture of several informants for [the subject's] "desire," it really comes down to our influences--with regard to our CONCEPTION and thus our ATTITUDE (or "approach," just for inclusiveness' sake).

The terminology is a product of sociocultural paradigms, so terms such as "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" or "bi-curious" are misleading because they presuppose definite categories that can be distinguished from one another. By applying labels, we assume extremes: one end is "attracted to males" and the other is "attracted to females." Thus, people are usually relegated to one end--although, as we have seen:

Sexual preference isn't black and white

Which, if you recall, was presupposition 1.

Aziel, you focus only on sensual stimulation and not aesthetic preference. While, I may prefer certain types of sexual stimulation that would inevitably lead me to homoerotica, the end result is that I receive stimulation of my sexual organs from another person. The question of acceptability is made by society and those within it. We are all discussing this issue because we are products of our society. The Ancient Greeks would find this topic absurd.

I believe the issues of attraction and emotional connect are relevant because PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONS BECAUSE OF THEM. Aziel, you are being an idealist because you are suggesting that people should only act according to sensual stimuli. Society, however, would disagree with you.

In sentiments such as this:

Unwanted pregnancies defeat your point, because you seem to think biological impulse dictates actions, when in fact it does not, otherwise a person would never be homosexual, and no pregnancy would ever be unwanted.

Humanity does not run on instinct anymore.

I must disagree. How do you exist? Did God make you materialize out of thin air? No. You have two parents. You make sweeping generalizations that are unjustified. People do have instincts: babies IN THE WOMB blink, smile, dream, grab, "walk" (a kicking reflex that can be observed if you hold a baby above the ground in the upright position); they are born with the ability to cry, laugh, articulate (if not coherently in language), and a whole host of other actions, including the ability to learn and be influenced by environmental factors.

I posit that "sexual attraction" is a product of biological mechanisms. Many people (possibly all?) NEVER CHOSE THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION and thus would agree with me. I needn't quote here.

I agree with you when you note that people have sex purely for the physical stimulation and without the intention of reproduction. However, sex still fulfills this function and "reproduction" cannot be ignored on those grounds alone.

Furthermore, humans (who are not alone in this) care for their young after birth. Having the parents work together to achieve goals increases the young's chance of survival--and is thus evolutionarily viable. Hence, attraction and relationships.

I think the following is a bit extreme:

It's a bit ignorant to dismiss the fact that so many people have sex for pleasure, and have absolutely NO desire to reproduce.

The desire to propogate the species has all but diminished in humankind.
Attraction is not based on reproduction, it is based on compromise more often than not.

Our existence to debate the issue seems to contradict your statement.

You were arguing impulse. I am arguing the mechanism of that impulse. Ideally, people would have sex with the opposite gender for reproduction and with anyone for pleasure. Hence, my clever title:
[QUOTE}
If I masturbate, does that mean I am sexually attracted to my hand?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, my hand is a "compromise" as far as stimulus goes. It does not follow that I am sexually attracted to hands--although I may be, there exists only a correlation, not a cause-and-effect.

And again: Aziel, I would like to agree with you, but reality prevents me from doing so.

Furthermore, I am "straight." That does not mean that I do not find members of the same sex attractive according to my personal aesthetic criteria--nor does it mean that I identify with said label because my culture compels me to. On the contrary, I chose to engage in heterosexual activities for to purely individual reasons. Ideally, people would choose both.

Lelouch:

The emotional connection isn't necessary for sexual relations. Which is why it's irrelevant in discussions of sexuality.

or
Aziel:

I look at sexuality in a very narrow fashion: it deals with sex.

Love is such a complicated thing that just doesn't factor in for me.

Love is just difficult.

Sexual intercourse serves a function. People are free to disregard that function, but it doesn't stop their bodies from performing it anyway (hence, why accidental pregnancies assist my point and more than yours). Aziel, if you choose to ignore that function you may make that decision as an individual but you cannot universalize the appropriateness of said decision on all of humanity and disregard biological impetus.


I posit that the whole issue of "falling in love" with someone is relevant to the topic. Not because it is physically or emotionally necessary, but because it is culturally so.

No that is not what I was arguing, I was arguing that a liking of certain sensual stimuli could "break" someone's "sexual preference".

A straight man having sex with another man because he enjoys anal sex.

You are ignoring the whole point of trying not to get pregnant, were we truly run by biological impulse we would only be having sex to get pregnant.


Reproduction and sex are simply not the same things. It's all about intent, intent is the opposite of impulse.

Aziel:

Actually I'm a realist.

Apparently, we aren't arguing the same thing. I never made any statements regarding mechanism.

I'm talking about impulse.

trumpettree:

Oh, and impulse comes from thin air does it? You don't actually believe that, do you?

Aziel:

Again, please read the topic fully to understand what is being discussed.

You are the only one pulling nonsense from thin air.

I'd like to point out the title of my aforementioned post:
No, we aren't arguing the same thing: I'm arguing with you and you aren't getting it.

echo
echo
echo
echo
cricket


I believe that statements like this:

Reproduction and sex are simply not the same things. It's all about intent, intent is the opposite of impulse.

enhance my supposition that one of us has a larger handle on the situation.




Your point is supported by UNWANTED; mine is supported by PREGNANCIES.

Perhaps because the pregnancy occurs regardless (of course, abortion is intent, but--alas--the body has no abortion organ . . .), then that will assist in convincing you that my position is the stronger one?

I believe the issue of sexuality is a biological one--NOT a conscious decision. It is requisite to your assertions that sexual orientation be determined by choice. IDEALLY we would have no misconceptions and aversions to sex with either gender--but it is not so IN REALITY.

No that is not what I was arguing, I was arguing that a liking of certain sensual stimuli could "break" someone's "sexual preference".

. . . seems idealist to me . . .



Reproduction and sex are the same act--men cannot control their ejaculation anymore than you can control your PMS-fueled tirades . . . I mean menstruation. Intent is an issue, yes, but remember: unwanted pregnancies only occur in heterosexual couples.

Hmm.

I should note that my argument does imply that

aesthetic preference => specific physical stimulus
and that
physical preference =/= aesthetic preference.

This is where Aziel and I disagree.

It would then follow that some sort of "internal hardwiring" is responsible--existing only in the brain and not in the genitals (which would explain why gay men still ejaculate, no?). Remember: its still your genitalia that get stimulated--

For the record, I know several gay men who never take it in the bum. They find it uncomfortable. One friend of mine does it only because it pleasures his partner and is "the only way to connect with him" . . . not because his prostate likes being smashed. And why do lesbians use dildos? What's wrong with a penis, hmm?

--If the issue of "orientation" is one of the brain, then [still, I'm relying on what I've studied of developmental psychology, so . . .] it is largely influenced by an individual's sociocultural environment. Which is my point.

Furthermore, I do not think that influence of the sociocultural environment is resultant from an aesthetic dogma (which in Aziel's supposition would result from physical stimuli alone, and thus be the logical conclusion), rather I believe that the issue is deeper, because sociological mechanisms are the product of evolution in conjunction with biological mechanisms. Thus, I argue that

Our existence and ability to debate the issue seems to contradict your statement.

You were arguing impulse. I am arguing the mechanism of that impulse.

Societal factors are not a mechanism of impulse, they are enviromental influences.

Problem is these factors are not really the result of evolution, since so many factors are detriments to human betterment.

The factors can vary from extremely supportive to extremely traumatic. There is no one factor you can pin down to causing sexuality, the factors vary wildly between individuals.

One person might not see any reason beyond "because I like it", while one person might be able to list several reasons for their sexual preference.

Just like who we are attracted to, we are all the sum total of our experiences. What is black for you, may be white for someone else.

But evolution? It is naive to think that preference has something to do with evolution.
If you are going to take that stance, make sure to call it devolution.

In your most recent post you seem to have changed positions--you were ignoring all of those influences before weren't you? Sex doesn't seem to be only about sex anymore.

If the issue of "orientation" is one of the brain, then [still, I'm relying on what I've studied of developmental psychology, so . . .] it is largely influenced by an individual's sociocultural environment.

we are all the sum total of our experiences

Hmm.





I should clarify that--in its original context--by "mechanism" I was referring to the biological, not the sociocultural. They do, however, exist in tandem, so . . . .


I may be verbose, but I'm not absent-minded. Usually (ha).

I know you were referring to the biological and that is what I was addressing.

No reason to adknowledge other factors if no one else is going to. My position hasn't changed, you simply stopped arguing one thing. If you recall, when you claimed to know my position, I informed you that you did not.

Now you will learn more about my position or you will go back to contesting only one facet of the issue, and learn nothing more.

Either way, I would suggest more time spent thinking about what you are saying, less time spent thinking about how to sound smart.

Then feel free to enlighten me, oh exalted one. I'm done with "position."

You appear to be an exponent of choice. While there is a definite sociocultural influence with regards to the perception of types of action, there is substantial evidence that supports the notion of a biological mechanism that precedes any such conscious action by an individual.

I'm not really concerned with your opinions about that observation, because you are free to believe whatever you like. I'm much less interested in "proving myself right" . . . more so in "proving you wrong."

You've already written yourself in circles. I'm not going to repeat proof of this; rather, I would direct you to my previous few posts which display this quite plainly.



As far as my own appearance is concerned:
Does this make you feel any better? . . .

Me? Don't look to me for the answer: I know nothing. Nothing at all--but I'm damn sure you don't know anything either!

--my political philosophy professor quoting Socrates

At all? No? Hm? Put those words in my mouth and see if it bothers me. Oh, it won't. Which is why I wrote them.



You wrote:

Why the friend request?
You have little idea who I am.

I could echo this, but I don't like to do that *chuckles and points slyly to someone nearby* so instead I'll act according to the pattern I've established . . .

Better than you realize .
Because, of course, my goal here is to make friends with you.

If you wish only to further derail the thread with your inanity, it can be closed right now.

You can request whatever you like, but you will get nothing. Like the majority of those who make requests.

I've not written myself in circles, I've only explained another portion of a much bigger issue. It ends here though, since you've derailed the thread enough, your argument doesn't even apply to the topic at hand.

So enough.

So.....this thread is dead?

The difference between pansexual and bisexual are as follows.

Bi-Sexuals only like people who are male or female,

Pansexuals like people regardless of gender so this includes Transexual, transgender and stuff like that, which is not included in bisexual.

Puck is Asexual, which I guess is the opposite of pansexual xD

Originally Posted by Liquid Fire

Now just to address the few bisexuals that are actually bisexual and not just hovering between gender limited sexualities. Again its not the new gay because I think its actually older than homosexuality, a bunch of historic figures were bisexual (julius ceaser, caligula etc.) rather than just plain gay. That could be people happy in grey region or people not wanting to lose their heterosexual identity (since it was all 'sinful' and an 'abomination' *cuss* back then) We'll never know.

You forgot John Nash.

Anyway, it seems to be that homosexuality/bisexuality is something used to attract a member of the opposite sex through 'openness' on occasion, while often it is more valid. Bisexuality serves more as a stepping stone between homosexuality and straightness often; either way, they aren't confident. It can also look 'cool' because it is so rebellious.

Because bi-ness is ne to that, however, it is the new 'different' (gay) in many ways, though it's been around.

Bisexual is a valid sexual preference, therefore people can be confident bisexuals.