Are Bisexuals a Valid Sexual Orientation or a Myth?

[loseyourname]

I won't quote on the stuff about animals because, as I said, it is irrelevant. Infanticide is as common among animals as homosexuality, perhaps more so, but nobody is foolish enough to offer the argument that there's nothing wrong with killing your children.

Well of course not. Even though people too involved in ideological politics still fail to distinguish between facts and values, in ethics anyway, very few since Hume pointed out the "is-ought" gap have honestly tried to derive imperative conclusions from statements of fact.

But, this thread isn't asking whether we should accept bisexuality as morally acceptable behavior. It's just asking whether bisexual creatures actually exist.

 

[nabuco]

This thread is gay

I haven't noticed that until I read Pythagorean's post. To think I fell for it...

 

[Pythagorean]

He didn't say it was a bad thing, but he did make it sound like social constructs are less relevant than biological impulses.

ironically, following social constructs is often a biological impulse regarding acceptance.

But I didn't mean to imply that they were less relevant for that reason. Social construct are only bad if they make you miserable. Nobody wants to kill their own kids (even when they do kill them), but people do want to have sex for pleasure, and that's ok with me. Furthermore, it doesn't bother me who they have it with (as long as it's not my kids, right?)

When you look to the animal world for approval for any human behavior, you are bound to be confounded by what you find. And especially so if you're not religious, as most gay/pro-gay people are.

I think you'd find the same problem in religion. For instance, how much of war and human suffering is justified by books written by 'prophets' and non-profit organizations looking for funding?

 

[nabuco]

this thread isn't asking whether we should accept bisexuality as morally acceptable behavior. It's just asking whether bisexual creatures actually exist.

I was under the impression it was about whether bisexuality is different from homosexuality. To ask if there are people who are attracted to both sexes is too silly. Or, should I say, too gay

(sorry I deleted my post, I don't want to be involved in this discussion anymore, it's just way too silly and, for the most part, incredibly juvenile)

 

[nabuco]

ironically, following social constructs is often a biological impulse regarding acceptance.

There's nothing biological regarding acceptance.

Social construct are only bad if they make you miserable.

They are only bad if you don't like them, right? Yeah, I know.

Nobody wants to kill their own kids (even when they do kill them)

Nonsense. Read the news.

people do want to have sex for pleasure, and that's ok with me.

I also want to have sex for pleasure, and I do, almost everyday, and I get a lot of pleasure. What does that have to do with anything?

Furthermore, it doesn't bother me who they have it with (as long as it's not my kids, right?)

Actually, it probably does bother you if it's a priest, but let's not talk about that...

I think you'd find the same problem in religion. For instance, how much of war and human suffering is justified by books written by 'prophets' and non-profit organizations looking for funding?

Does that come from a broken record or something? I'm so tired of this "religion brings war" stuff. For one thing, if there were no religions there would still be wars, but there would be nothing wrong with them. Your anti-war stance is essentially the product of thousands of years of religious indoctrination, although you probably don't recognize it.

Besides, all I said was that religion is the only institution that claims men are different from animals. If you're not religious you might see humans as just another species. But I didn't say we are not.

(now I'm really out of here)

 

[loseyourname]

I was under the impression it was about whether bisexuality is different from homosexuality. To ask if there are people who are attracted to both sexes is too silly. Or, should I say, too gay

Well, I think either question is silly, frankly. Of course persons exist that engage in sexual relations with both sexes, and persons exist that stick to one sex, whether it be same or other. Their sexual behavior is clearly different, so the only sense in which this question can really not be silly is to ask whether bisexuals are actually attracted to both sexes and whether homo- or heterosexuals are actually attracted to only one sex, or whether their behavior is explicable by something other than inherent attraction.

 

[Pythagorean]

Does that come from a broken record or something? I'm so tired of this "religion brings war" stuff. For one thing, if there were no religions there would still be wars, but there would be nothing wrong with them. Your anti-war stance is essentially the product of thousands of years of religious indoctrination, although you probably don't recognize it.

I've bold-typed your fallacies here.

[1]I didn't say religion causes war. We weren't talking about the causes of war. Obviously war is brought on by two extreme conflicting views whatever they may be.

[2]I thought we were talking about justification, not cause. I actually don't have a problem with war as long as it's reasoned out and not given the attributes of a holy crusade. Christopher Hitchens, for instance supports a war on terrorism, but not the crusading theme carried by the current US administration.

To the OP, Sorry to go off-topic, I'm just pointing at that somebody in this thread has a knack for forming their conclusions with the intent to argue, rather than the intent to understand.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Umm... pardon me but I see both situations in a different light. The reason we find the term "sexy" associated with kids as repulsive, is because they haven't reached sexual maturity yet (duh).

You might be reading more into this than I intended. I was describing the effects (the particular feeling of disgust) rather than the causal mechanisms (what creates the disgust).

However when suppose I say my friend looks sexy, it doesn't mean that I am actually sexually attracted to the person, but rather someone of the opposite sex (or same sex if homosexual) would find him/her sexually attractive. I base my remark on what I know to be generally accepted as sexual attractiveness.

If you can express this opinion without disgust, and without any attraction to your own gender, then on my scale you are about 99.9% heterosexual. This is just my own view of the extremes and in-betweens of the hetero-bi-homo continuum. You are free, of course, to create your own. You and I just probably differ on what those extreme ends of the scale are.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

You might be reading more into this than I intended. I was describing the effects (the particular feeling of disgust) rather than the causal mechanisms (what creates the disgust).

If you can express this opinion without disgust, and without any attraction to your own gender, then on my scale you are about 99.9% heterosexual. This is just my own view of the extremes and in-betweens of the hetero-bi-homo continuum. You are free, of course, to create your own. You and I just probably differ on what those extreme ends of the scale are.

Off on a tangent, I’m interested in understanding this post better (but for the record, to the op, yes).

I think I see you are saying that it is impossible to subjectively evaluate solely objectively. I don’t see where the emotion of disgust comes into it, and causal mechanisms, and am interested in understanding that.

One thought is that it would be evolutionarily advantageous to be able to determine to some extent the competition, thus, beneficial to heterosexuals to determine the sexiness of their competitors-others of the same sex. I don’t know whether this is a counter to the premise that ‘pure’ straights must not be able to see their own sex as sexy and that they can, whether it a counter to ‘pure’ heterosexuality, or whether it is evidenced in the bad summations some people make about what attracts the opposite sex.

Were it to counter the premise, I would add imagination, and that the empiricists especially and Samuel Taylor Coleridge with his ‘consciously paradoxical’ ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ write of how art can stir emotions that have no direct cause. If we can have feelings that aren’t directly provoked and seem not entirely about reality, when, say listening to music or reading a book, does this make it plausible that ‘pure’ straights and can appreciate members of their own sex as sexy without feeling remotely attracted? Whether or not this is an attack on the premise I think involves whether imagining an emotion already felt (sexual attraction) can extend to a different orientation. Also, importantly, it would depend on how real these imagined emotions are. This is all tricky to think about, not being of a ‘pure’ heart (bad pun), but if I believed what I am musing about, then perhaps I should be able to imagine even this.

Otherwise, it may be reason to show the anomaly of purity, as suggested, and further, also show more evolutionarily demanded reasons for fluid and homosexual genders.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I've bold-typed your fallacies here.

[1]I didn't say religion causes war. We weren't talking about the causes of war. Obviously war is brought on by two extreme conflicting views whatever they may be.

Yep, like I think I should have your stuff, but you disagree

[2]I thought we were talking about justification, not cause. I actually don't have a problem with war as long as it's reasoned out and not given the attributes of a holy crusade. Christopher Hitchens, for instance supports a war on terrorism, but not the crusading theme carried by the current US administration.

I'm going to assume your views are more complicated than you're letting on.

 

[Pythagorean]

[1]Yep, like I think I should have your stuff, but you disagree

[2]I'm going to assume your views are more complicated than you're letting on.

[1]Yeah, kind of like that. There's actually people that like working for their own things, though...

[2] I don't know what quite what you mean. My views aren't completely developed. I'm not anti-war (love my second amendment) but I'm definitely not okay with people saying they've been given divine rights.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I was under the impression it was about whether bisexuality is different from homosexuality. To ask if there are people who are attracted to both sexes is too silly. Or, should I say, too gay

Well, I think either question is silly, frankly. Of course persons exist that engage in sexual relations with both sexes, and persons exist that stick to one sex, whether it be same or other. Their sexual behavior is clearly different, so the only sense in which this question can really not be silly is to ask whether bisexuals are actually attracted to both sexes and whether homo- or heterosexuals are actually attracted to only one sex, or whether their behavior is explicable by something other than inherent attraction.

Another helpful remark falling to the wayside I see. I thought I'd pick it up and offer a response. Perhaps overall affectional orientation has a role in determining sexual orientation. Read about it here.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

[1]Yeah, kind of like that. There's actually people that like working for their own things, though...

Like might not be the right word. And this is the way people have acted, well, since before they evolved into people. Look at chimpanzee behavior - they go to war. Humans do the same and it's well documented in archaeological records. It almost seems as automatic as physical chemistry. Is it just a coincidence that people who go to war usually stand to gain much if they win? If homosexuality is supposedly maladaptive, then so is war without material gain.

[2] I don't know what quite what you mean. My views aren't completely developed. I'm not anti-war (love my second amendment) but I'm definitely not okay with people saying they've been given divine rights.

And have you completely forgot the badness of death? To say you don't have a problem with war, as long as it's backed by "reason" and not dressed up in the wrong garb, is insane. I mean, you're talking about themes and not offending your philosophical sensibilities where people's lives are at stake. How about, you accept it as a necessary evil, but you don't embrace and celebrate it?

 

[Pythagorean]

[1]Like might not be the right word. And this is the way people have acted, well, since before they evolved into people. Look at chimpanzee behavior - they go to war. Humans do the same and it's well documented in archaeological records. It almost seems as automatic as physical chemistry. Is it just a coincidence that people who go to war usually stand to gain much if they win? If homosexuality is supposedly maladaptive, then so is war without material gain.



[2]And have you completely forgot the badness of death? To say you don't have a problem with war, as long as it's backed by "reason" and not dressed up in the wrong garb, is insane. I mean, you're talking about themes and not offending your philosophical sensibilities where people's lives are at stake. How about, you accept it as a necessary evil, but you don't embrace and celebrate it?

[1] Ok... somebody likes to argue... I don't think we disagree here, but it's hard to tell with you trying to sound all intellectual.

[2]I don't embrace and celebrate it, no, but I wouldn't necessarily call it evil either. I wouldn't start a war with someone personally, because it's more profitable to befriend people and make them secure. I don't like aggressive people, and I would shoot one if my life depended on it.

No, I don't really have a problem with war or death. Of course, I can't help but try to stop my own death (and that type of mentality could lead to war where there was oppression before).

What if an aggressive persons oppresses me non-violently or threatens my ability to live without suffering? I don't think it's 'evil' of me to be violent to end it, I think the oppressors are evil.

So yes... bisexuals exist!

 

[honestrosewater]

Another helpful remark falling to the wayside I see. I thought I'd pick it up and offer a response. Perhaps overall affectional orientation has a role in determining sexual orientation. Read about it here.

There are also those who hold the view that their orientation is defined by whom one has affection towards and that their sexual attraction is based on affection for another human being's personal qualities rather than their gender or appearance, sex and gender playing no part in the attraction.

This sounds like it might be close to my case, but there are a couple of wrinkles.

I'm not sure how they mean that gender plays no part. Aren't genders collections of personal qualities? Is there much of a distinction between gender and gender roles, e.g., gender roles focus solely on behaviors, but gender can include other things?

It sounds wrong at first to say that appearance is never the basis for attraction, because I am physically attracted to people that I am sexually attracted to (hah, if the "sexual" part didn't sort that out), i.e., I find their appearance attractive and pleasing and all that good stuff. But on reflection, it's actually totally correct, the key word being "basis". The physical attraction develops as I get to know to someone. I haven't been sexually attracted to someone "at first sight" in a long time. And that's another thing...

I haven't always been this way. It seems more like something that I have trained myself to do. I could of course be wrong is that assessment, but it seems to work in ways similar to my habits regarding and control over getting angry or upset, being violent or jealous, etc.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

[1] Ok... somebody likes to argue... I don't think we disagree here, but it's hard to tell with you trying to sound all intellectual.

You said something outrageous, I commented on it. If you want to make an argument out of it, that's up to you.

[2]I don't embrace and celebrate it, no, but I wouldn't necessarily call it evil either. I wouldn't start a war with someone personally, because it's more profitable to befriend people and make them secure. I don't like aggressive people, and I would shoot one if my life depended on it.

Wait, what happened to your lofty ideals for going to war? I suppose the ideals are only pretty things to dress war up in so you can profit? (Not that this isn't what usually goes on, but just so we're clear) That last part was great hilarious :)

No, I don't really have a problem with war or death. Of course, I can't help but try to stop my own death (and that type of mentality could lead to war where there was oppression before).

What if an aggressive persons oppresses me non-violently or threatens my ability to live without suffering? I don't think it's 'evil' of me to be violent to end it, I think the oppressors are evil.

Just wow. Your views are more complicated than I thought, but not in the way I thought apparently.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

This sounds like it might be close to my case, but there are a couple of wrinkles.

Just to clarify for those not following the link, a lot of this field is uncertain and in quite a tangle, but a useful tangle at least.

I'm not sure how they mean that gender plays no part. Aren't genders collections of personal qualities? Is there much of a distinction between gender and gender roles, e.g., gender roles focus solely on behaviors, but gender can include other things?

I suppose gender and gender roles are just frameworks that one can place on a person to contextualize and interpret their behavior. Perhaps the framework (which includes cultural contexts) is what they are ignoring, yet the behaviors remain and you see them in a different light.

 

[loseyourname]

Guys, unless there is some relation between war and bisexuality that I'm not getting, I'd advise the little sidebar get dropped or moved.

Hey Shannon, why don't you help out wikipedia by expanding that stub! There's hardly any information in it. Looks like EBSCOhost and SOCindex don't go back to 1989 for the Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, either. Oh well, I'm just glad SSU hasn't cut off my access yet.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I still have mine too lol! And yeah, I have no info except wiki on affectional affiliation and asexuality.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Well, I think either question is silly, frankly. Of course persons exist that engage in sexual relations with both sexes, and persons exist that stick to one sex, whether it be same or other. Their sexual behavior is clearly different, so the only sense in which this question can really not be silly is to ask whether bisexuals are actually attracted to both sexes and whether homo- or heterosexuals are actually attracted to only one sex, or whether their behavior is explicable by something other than inherent attraction.

Thanks, OswerveO, for emphasising this. I’d missed that and agree. I find behavioural explanations interesting, but my knowledge very limited.

Sorry MIH, for my presumptions about what your views might be.

I’d been thinking of Damasio - 'Another important consequence of the pervasiveness of emotions is that virtually every image, actually perceived or recalled, is accompanied by some reaction from the apparatus of emotion.' I vaguely recall reading that emotions are generally an attraction to or repulsion from. It seemed that with extended consciousness, humans might be capable of a greater pallet of emotions that might over-ride others, like mental flowers-of-idleness. The affectional orientation link and the mention of cultural context increases my appreciation of the tangle.

This is then probably unanswerable- would a still-male dominated society be more likely find more marked delineations in men than women, like that described in results earlier in this thread?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Sorry MIH, for my presumptions about what your views might be.

oh, no offense taken. I am still just trying to work out a thoughtful reply to your post. I also just got back in town last night -- and speaking of, I read something interesting in Discover magazine while I was on the train coming back. It was about research into genes and homosexuality and theories about what evolutionary purpose homosexuality might serve. I thought about you when I was reading it. I should go dig it out of my bag.

 

[honestrosewater]

This is then probably unanswerable- would a still-male dominated society be more likely find more marked delineations in men than women, like that described in results earlier in this thread?

What you mention, domination in society, seems like more of a cultural than a biological thing, and it strikes me that ideas about masculinity and its importance might be what keeps some men from considering homosexuality or causes them to be repulsed by it.

There's a sociologist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kimmel" , who studies masculinity and is pretty entertaining. He seems to be somewhat popular (as sociologists go, haha), so it's easy to find his work, talks, etc.

It was about research into genes and homosexuality and theories about what evolutionary purpose homosexuality might serve.

I've seen arildno mention things like that, homosexuals taking care of children and such.

 

[raolduke]

This whole thread makes me think that bi-sexuality doesn't exist.. Its just a matter of preference, attraction, sensations, and maybe a little liquid courage. Of course the word exists but it doesn't really mean anything other than one who enjoys hetero and homosexual relationships. Maybe if we had some insight into certain profiles and traits that a "bi-sexual" holds, we could do some sort of psycho-analyzation of the question.

 

[honestrosewater]

Of course the word exists but it doesn't really mean anything other than one who enjoys hetero and homosexual relationships.

And how does this differ from saying that "heterosexuality" doesn't really mean anything other than one who enjoys non-homosexual relationships?

Maybe if we had some insight into certain profiles and traits that a "bi-sexual" holds, we could do some sort of psycho-analyzation of the question.

Haha, yes, if only...

But on that note, I did come across this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...e&db=PubMed&list_uids=12529061&dopt=Citation".

Although it is typically presumed that heterosexual individuals only fall in love with other-gender partners and gay-lesbian individuals only fall in love with same-gender partners, this is not always so. The author develops a biobehavioral model of love and desire to explain why. The model specifies that (a) the evolved processes underlying sexual desire and affectional bonding are functionally independent; (b) the processes underlying affectional bonding are not intrinsically oriented toward other-gender or same-gender partners; (c) the biobehavioral links between love and desire are bidirectional, particularly among women. These claims are supported by social-psychological, historical, and cross-cultural research on human love and sexuality as well as by evidence regarding the evolved biobehavioral mechanisms underlying mammalian mating and social bonding.

 

[raolduke]

roffle.. You could say all of that but the way I look at it is you are either heterosexual or your not.. The intention of sex is to pass on your traits (and in humans, principle) to your offspring with the best candidate for creating a stronger being. I think its evident why we are becoming "over populated". Sexual deviation, like homosexuality and bisexuality, just seems like flaw but doesn’t seem very relevant to creatures that can go about satisfying them selves in non-traditional fashions.

 

[honestrosewater]

The intention of sex is to pass on your traits (and in humans, principle) to your offspring with the best candidate for creating a stronger being.

You are ascribing intentional action to evolutionary processes? Even if that is defensible, why should humans care what evolution wants? By the same reasoning, couldn't you argue that the intention of viruses is to infect hosts, so we shouldn't try to cure viral diseases? In fact, we shouldn't try to cure any diseases, should we? Unless one of the intentions of humans is to cure diseases. How exactly are we to know the intentions of evolution anyway?

 

[Pythagorean]

Sexual deviation, like homosexuality and bisexuality, just seems like flaw but doesn’t seem very relevant to creatures that can go about satisfying them selves in non-traditional fashions.

This makes no sense to me.

 

[raolduke]

This makes no sense to me.

Pornography, masturbation, and other things like masochism.

We don't care about evolution because we really don't care about anything else.. We take everything for granted and there are too few that do "care".

You are ascribing intentional action to evolutionary processes? Even if that is defensible, why should humans care what evolution wants? By the same reasoning, couldn't you argue that the intention of viruses is to infect hosts, so we shouldn't try to cure viral diseases? In fact, we shouldn't try to cure any diseases, should we? Unless one of the intentions of humans is to cure diseases. How exactly are we to know the intentions of evolution anyway?

We destroy viruses because they hinder our growth mentally as well as physically.. They make us feel crumby.. They have the same right to life as we do but we have something called a "spirit". What can you conclude about necessary bacterias that help us as humans survive?

When I think of applying purpose for life, the same as when I was very young, the dream of every person was to grow old with a family. In my mind this includes: Going to school, getting a job, securing retirement, and dying.. Love fits in there somewhere I am sure.

Explain to me then how love factors in and your definition paternity and maternity?

 

[Pythagorean]

Pornography, masturbation, and other things like masochism.

We don't care about evolution because we really don't care about anything else.. We take everything for granted and there are too few that do "care".

you make it sound so... 'holier than thou' to care. I don't care about evoloution myself. It's an interesting subject and all, but it's not my subject.

We destroy viruses because they hinder our growth mentally as well as physically.. They make us feel crumby.. They have the same right to life as we do but we have something called a "spirit". What can you conclude about necessary bacterias that help us as humans survive?

There's really no such thing as a 'right' to life... I mean, it's not a physical, tangible thing, which means that (more than likely) it's a human construction. If it's a human construction then there are no set rules, all that we really care about is our own survival and comfort (as with every other animal). In that light, of course, certain viruses don't have a chance to live, regardless of their 'rights'.

 

[Huckleberry]

roffle.. You could say all of that but the way I look at it is you are either heterosexual or your not.. The intention of sex is to pass on your traits (and in humans, principle) to your offspring with the best candidate for creating a stronger being. I think its evident why we are becoming "over populated". Sexual deviation, like homosexuality and bisexuality, just seems like flaw but doesn’t seem very relevant to creatures that can go about satisfying them selves in non-traditional fashions.

I highly doubt that bisexuals, and especially homosexuals, are responsible for overpopulation. That is a different issue entirely.

The intention of sex is whatever the individuals involved decide it is. Creating offspring is an effect of the action, not the cause of it. Would be funny if it was. Oops, I just had another child. Damn me, my deviant mind and my empty wallet.

Bisexuality and homosexuality may seem like flaws to you, and I'm fine with that. Hopefully you can accept that others disagree with you.

Stronger, Faster, Better babies, dadadadadadadadada. That part is probably true. Still funny though.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

oh, no offense taken. I am still just trying to work out a thoughtful reply to your post. I also just got back in town last night -- and speaking of, I read something interesting in Discover magazine while I was on the train coming back. It was about research into genes and homosexuality and theories about what evolutionary purpose homosexuality might serve. I thought about you when I was reading it. I should go dig it out of my bag.

thanks, and yes, just thought that may be another of many purposes.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

What you mention, domination in society, seems like more of a cultural than a biological thing, and it strikes me that ideas about masculinity and its importance might be what keeps some men from considering homosexuality or causes them to be repulsed by it.

There's a sociologist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kimmel" , who studies masculinity and is pretty entertaining. He seems to be somewhat popular (as sociologists go, haha), so it's easy to find his work, talks, etc.

I've seen arildno mention things like that, homosexuals taking care of children and such.

Very interesting, thanks!

 

[raolduke]

The intention of sex is whatever the individuals involved decide it is. Creating offspring is an effect of the action, not the cause of it. Would be funny if it was. Oops, I just had another child. Damn me, my deviant mind and my empty wallet.

It’s funny that people, I am not typing that there is anyone on this forum, argue that there are definites and absolutes but then try to say that definitions are subjective.

The word bi-sexual exists and I thought it meant one who enjoys or takes part in sexual acts/experiences/preference of both male and female. How doesn't a bi-sexual exist then?

 

[Huckleberry]

It’s funny that people, I am not typing that there is anyone on this forum, argue that there are definites and absolutes but then try to say that definitions are subjective.

I'm not sure what the context for using my quote here is, but what you have stated is sometimes the way I see it. I don't see any logical paradox in that statement or any other combination of absolute and relative definitions and ideas. I see no reason to assume that the definition and the idea it is defining have any relation. I don't know that my thoughts and the thoughts of others are an acurate representation of what actually exists. The strength of the definition is in how widely agreed upon it is to the idea it represents. When two people can look at the same thing and perceive something completely different, has the idea they are trying to describe changed, or have the definitions they are using to describe the idea changed? I believe that either case could be true or false.

I would rather try to undersand someone elses concept of a thing and make an argument in their terms. It's difficult to argue about a thing if people can't agree how to define what it is.

 

[raolduke]

The most widely accepted statement is truth?
Consensus, conformity, causalities?

A word to the wise is infuriating

My problem with some people is when they try to examine things in a scientific manner and they don't put any consideration into allusion or abstraction.

While we're on the subject
Could we change the subject now?