Well, before I do that, a little dissertation on offence.
Applenut may have been refering to me, or not, but I don't think Lesbianism is offensive. If we're all open modern people who accept different walks of life, then broaching the subject of orientation is not offensive unless people automatically assume that it is meant as insult. And to make that assumption, then they'd have to think lesbianism something negative, or that the caller thinks that it might be, or intends for it to be used as an attack. To me, it's just fun, and really really doesn't impact my opinion of homos in any way. Why is this suddenly a protected orientation? Good marketting?
If you look at most sexual humor as basically hetero humor, then a little homo humor just levels the field. What I do, I see as the height of tolerance and inclusiveness, though it is perhaps a little too counter-intuitive for most people to read properly.
I might borrow from Dennis Miller's "I don't care what you fvck, just fvck it regularly!" line about bisexuality, but that's a little off the mark, close mind, but not exactly.
You could start with Freud, who's just too entertaining to pass up, or take my favorite feminazi, Judith Butler, but one needs only begin with fashion to start making the case for why homos most likely are what they say are, whilst women who claim to be lesbians are closer to 50/50 -- some are, some are only temporarily so -- and why bisexuality is basically a misnomer.
Then there is the case of ambiguous sexaulity, androgyny, the 3rd gender, and all that other rare biological sexual outlier stuff.
iDunno, if I should do it, now that I've mentioned it, I've been doing a lot of writing lately, and probably want to save some of it for more profitable dreams.
If we might go back to offence for a second... Should people take offence? While it's often great fun when they do, I think people really get way too offended way too easily, most of the time over stuff they shouldn't get offended about in the first place.
Or this could just be a consequence of having a 17 year old mod, and that's perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old brain which is neither fully utlized nor should it be.
Ever notice that it's perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged for girls to be bi-sexual, but there are so few bi-sexual guys?
A friend of mine(guy) is bi-sexual, he get's a lot of girlfriends, he doesn't have boyfriends or anything, but he is attracted by men as well as girls, it's less so with men though, he's primarily interested in women, but men do also spark his interest somewhat.
Early on in college I had a girlfriend who decided to sleep with my best friend's girlfriend, and both of those girls pleaded with me not to let my friend find out about it because they argued he wouldn't be tolerant of it. As if they automatically assumed I would be tolerant of it, which I was not. The girlfriend went on to volunteer to me that she had had the most satisfying sexual experience of her life that night (I was not having sex in those days... she might have had a different answer if so. ) So right out of the gate, the subject of lesbians and bisexuals is a sore one for me.
I guess I'm one of those rare guys who doesn't particularly enjoy the idea of two women together, or being in a threesome situation with two women. I'm a one woman guy. If that's what gets you out of bed in the morning, or gets you into bed, then fine, but it's not for me.
I'm all for sexual freedom and don't think it's really anyone's business who you're doing the nasty with, but I think intelligent life in general and humans in particular have an innate desire to propagate the species. That's fine if you're a woman and you want to have sex with another woman, but even the most militant lesbians are going to need a man's help if they want a child. (Even if you adopt one, it didn't grow on a tree.) So, regardless of whether it feels good or not, if you're having sex with someone of the same gender, basically you're automatically doing it wrong. Have fun, kids.
(And no, I'm not one of those no-sex-before-marriage types, and I'm not religious in the least. I know very well that sex feels good, but I also know there can be a biological purpose to it.)
So, regardless of whether it feels good or not, if you're having sex with someone of the same gender, basically you're automatically doing it wrong.
I've seen this kind of comment before (though usually put more forcefully and with a greater religious emphasis) and it always makes me think about 'normal', married, heterosexual men and women who can't have kids for whatever biological reason.
Now I happen to know of at least one man and one women in this situation (both married, though not to each other) and know that for the woman at least it is utterly heartbreaking. If someone were to suggest that these people were in some way doing 'it' wrong or had no right to do 'it' at all then I would be highly offended and I'm sure they would to.
Now I happen to know of at least one man and one women in this situation (both married, though not to each other) and know that for the woman at least it is utterly heartbreaking. If someone were to suggest that these people were in some way doing 'it' wrong or had no right to do 'it' at all then I would be highly offended and I'm sure they would to.
There are also couples like my wife and I. We are not having any children. It is a choice that we made a long time ago and a choice that we are going to keep.
Does that mean we're not supposed to do 'it' either? \
stupider... I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the man and woman you know. Do you mean they are both involved in same-sex relationships?
Willoughby, of course your choice is your choice. The fact remains that if you wanted to have children, you could (barring any difficulties with conception, etc.) What I'm saying is that you'd be attempting it the right way.
Edit: I reread stupider...'s post and now understand. In the case of your friends, stupider... I guess it's unfortunate that it's not working out in their favor, but at least they've got the right idea. I doubt the woman you know in that case is saying, "Well I can't have children with this guy I'm having sex with, so I guess I'll go have sex with a woman and see if that works."
I think bisexuals are horn-doggers that want to boink anything that moves. They just want to fukc like... all the time, man!
I wonder if there have been any scientific studies done on the blood chemistry of bisexuals, that might indicate unusually high levels of hormones or other chemicals related to sex drive. No wait, that would be bigoted. Studies of homosexuals and bisexuals for the purpose of discerning wether or not bio-chemical imbalances play a role, implies there is something wrong with them, which implies hate.
Hmmm.
Well, I for one think most homosexuals are likely to have been born the way they are, because you know... why on God's green earth would a guy who is attracted to Anna Kournakova and her ilk, choose instead to play with a guy's hairy, smelly arse? They simply must not be attracted to women (or men as the case may be) and so they seek the same sex.
Bisexuals however... I dunno. I just can't envision a scenario where people are biologically wired to be equally attracted to both sexes. I think it's a psychological disorder. OOOPS! I must be a bigot. No wait, I don't think Rainman was evil or bad or deserving anyone's wrath -- and he had psychological problems. Nor do I think people who are schizophrenic are deserving of anything but kind treatment...
...but I do think they (psychologically unbalanced individuals) should be medicated if it all practical. That is I think it's key, that in order to treat any psychological / chemical disorder, that you at least have to have the balls to recognize it for what it is and seek ways to remedy the condition. Is it possible that wanting to "cure" bisexuality (I know, we can't say "cure" because it implies disease, which implies hate), is actually an act motivated by kindness and sympathy?
Would bisexuals be happier only being attracted to one or the other sex? I don't know. I just wish people weren't so damn afraid of looking into WHY people are bisexual (or even homosexual). Don't we have even a little curiosity about the science behind it? At a minimum, if you remedy the condition, you save the patient from a lot of stigma, verbal abuse and generally feeling bad about themselves in one way or another (at one time or another).
No that would be bigoted... we musn't even ask ourselves if there is a problem to be remedied. Then we would be close-minded.
No that would be bigoted... we musn't even ask ourselves if there is a problem to be remedied. Then we would be close-minded.
Considering the generally horrendous manner in which the mentally ill have been treated and continue to be treated in many cases, you almost certainly don't want people classifying you as having a 'mental problem'.
Also, any passing knowledge of the stuff that has been done to people (even in the recent past) in the name of 'curing' their homo/bisexuality renders your attack on the liberal hegemony less than humorous.
Lobotomies, castration, getting pumped full of hormones (not to mention being locked up with a bunch of loonies), electro-shock therapy and other such nonsense.
As for no research being allowed in this PC world, the research has been done and that's why homo/bisexuality hasn't been classified as a mental illness for over 25 years. (It's not even classed as one in China since last year.)
That's NOT what I'm talking about. Care of the mentally insane and the like is abominable -- I agree 100%. That's a totally separate - and unrelated I might add - issue from what I was suggesting.
Having psychological roots does not equal psychosis.
I am NOT suggesting that we seek to define abnormal - and I mean that in a STRICTLY statistical sense, not a judgemental one (talking bell curves here) - behaviors such as homosexuality (or bisexuality) as being akin to insanity. Hardly. Anyone who has been around relatively large populations of gay and bisexual individuals knows that they are not anymore or less crazy than anyone else.
What I AM suggesting is that - perhaps (I really don't know) - homosexuality (or bisexuality) has causes that are rooted in bio-chemistry, and more to the point are treatable with pharmaceuticals. In the same way someone with ADD may respond favorably to Ritalin, or that a depressed person might respond favorably to Zoloft, a bisexual individual may find that a futuristic drug can curb their appetite for sex with someone OF the same sex. We're talking mild, self-administered treatments here, not stigma and shock therapy.
Now whether or not that is a desirable outcome must be left to the individual. I have watched several documentaries where people who are attracted to those of the same sex genuinely wish that they were not. This drug then would be for them. And the results would undoubtedly be positive. However, we'll never in a million years get to that point if we can't admit that it's worth while to at least investigate these behaviors in a scientific way.
I'm sure studies have been done as you say, but I bet few if any of them had as their goal the idea of uncovering a bio-chemical cause for the behavior. I can almost guarantee it. But feel free to prove me wrong with reputable linkage. BTW, a "reputable" link is one that would not be likely to be suggested by Sammi Jo (for example).
I'll add also that I recognize that a "psychological abnormality" can be caused by purely environmental factors, and not just bio-chemical ones. Or a mixture of both.
My first post kind of gives the impression I think bisexuals have a psychological (but not bio-chemical) issue, whereas homosexuals must be bio-chemical from birth.
Those are simply my impressions and aren't worth much. The bigger question (bigger than anyone's opinion - including Matsu's ) is why we have this aversion to considering the possibility that these two behavior patterns *might* have bio-chemical roots. Roots that can be treated like any other condition.
A woman has a mild case of ADD because of the way her nuerons operate under certain conditions (affected by diet (chemical), environment (behavioral) and other things). Am I a close-minded or bigoted person if I am the first to suggest maybe we find a bio-chemical cause for that behavior and remedy it? No.
But if I apply the same line of thinking to say bisexuality. Suddenly I AM a bigot (to society at large if not in here), despite the fact there is basically no difference in the examples. Both conditions do not preclude a "normal" life, yet both can cause great emotional distress, and both (could be) caused by bio-chemical factors that a treatable.
The only difference is we're able to look objectively at ADD, but we're not able to look at homo- or bisexuality objectively, at least not in a clinical sense. Why?
I suppose we'd all be happier and fit in better if we all loved Windows and Intel-based computers. That's what most people prefer, so clearly anyone who doesn't prefer what 95% of the rest of the world likes is "abnormal". I'm not trying to be judgmental -- no, no, not that. Some of my best friends are Apple users. To my shame, even I used to be one, until just today when reading this thread I came to terms with my abnormality and found that I had to face the truth.
Wouldn't it be better if we looked at the issue objectively and researched the reasons for Wintel aversion so that maybe a cure could be found?
Hmm. Except: sex is a biologically driven behavior.
Computers we use, cars we drive, televisions we buy, [snip]: generally NOT biologically driven unless you want to get into the whole thrill seeker / hotrod thing. The point is, one of these things (sex) is something that is encoded into our genetic makeup and body chemistry from the day we're born. At least, for the great majority of people it is (including homosexuals I suspect).
And I'll reiterate again, since I can already sense the hostility (from a person here whom I've always respected and had no trouble with): statistically abnormal does not equal "bad person", "screwed up" or anything else in my view.
I'm simply saying: if we have a large cross-section of these individuals who might've opted for a more (statistically) normal sexual lifestyle, is it so wrong to investigate ways we might help them?
If you love who you are and who you ... do... then OK. Fine. I don't care, you don't care. Everything is peachy. But seems to me we ignore the possibility that many people might prefer to not live with the condition of being attracted to the same sex, were they to have a choice.
Not yet, but only because there's no suitable candidate right now. She's very picky about both men and women. She said she's done it before, though, but I haven't.
When you guys are out in public, are you suspicious of her checking out guys butts AND girls butts.
That might get a little annoying. Anyone is a possible target of her oogling
Scoping out other people's butts when in public is a perfectly natural phenomenon, practiced with equal vigor by heteros, homos and bis. It should only be a concern if the vile spectre of "butt brushing" or "goosing" is encountered, which can often bring a relationship to its knees.
Butt brushing is the act of walking just close enough to someone, that you can ever so gently glide the back of your hand across the target booty, leaving said target to wonder forever: was she hitting on me?
Chics will often scope out my butt and attempt a nonchalant butt-brushing when my lady isn't looking, but I never tell because you know -- it could destroy my relationship.
...but I do think they (psychologically unbalanced individuals) should be medicated if it all practical.
I think, I find your definition of unbalanced peculiar. Aren't the bisexuals more balanced in their tastes than the hets and gay? What is it that makes people having sexual desire for both sorts of human beings unbalanced?
Quote:
Is it possible that wanting to "cure" bisexuality (I know, we can't say "cure" because it implies disease, which implies hate), is actually an act motivated by kindness and sympathy?
One should only cure what causes pain. It's not the deviant sexual desire, but the boneheaded reaction of the more conservative and prudish part of society.
Quote:
Would bisexuals be happier only being attracted to one or the other sex? I don't know. I just wish people weren't so damn afraid of looking into WHY people are bisexual (or even homosexual). Don't we have even a little curiosity about the science behind it? At a minimum, if you remedy the condition, you save the patient from a lot of stigma, verbal abuse and generally feeling bad about themselves in one way or another (at one time or another).
Well, my wife is in fact bi[*], and she is happy with it as it is. I don't believe that changing the brain chemistry of bis is the way to spare them verbal abuse - what would be required is a more sex-positive attitude in the society. Actually, over here in Germany, a lot has changed in the last 100 years and if you choose your friends, you can be reasonably open about being bi without being stigmatized.
I believe, much more money should be invested in finding the reasons not only of bisexuality, but also what is missing in us hets - if there was a pill to broaden my sexual spectrum, I would gladly take it to double the number of people to chose my sex-partners from
[*] Yes, we had threesome with other girls, and yes, it was fun, so eat your hearts out
There's probably a happy medium between Moogs and Smircle on this.
Moogs is NOT too far off in his discourse on "abnormality"
At the same time, Smircle reads some (maybe most) of the psychologically injurious element rightly, in that it stems often from profound intolerance on the part of a generally conservative society.
I would venture that bisexuality is even rarer than homosexuality, at least in the sense that it comes from a biological (nature or orientation). I think most bisexuals are really just homosexuals or heterosexuals with either some libidinal quirk (very horny, adventurous, thrill seeker, yadda yadda) or some learned social behavior (wavering protest lesbians, for example Anne Heche) Perhaps they even come out of more permissive circles, however, I think that's really a little misleading. I would guess that they come out of more demanding circles -- 3rd/alt gender culture, which often places a heavy importance on performative hedonism.
Comments
Disertation on Bisexuality. I can "Bi sex " anywhere with my Amex
Well, before I do that, a little dissertation on offence.
Applenut may have been refering to me, or not, but I don't think Lesbianism is offensive. If we're all open modern people who accept different walks of life, then broaching the subject of orientation is not offensive unless people automatically assume that it is meant as insult. And to make that assumption, then they'd have to think lesbianism something negative, or that the caller thinks that it might be, or intends for it to be used as an attack. To me, it's just fun, and really really doesn't impact my opinion of homos in any way. Why is this suddenly a protected orientation? Good marketting?
If you look at most sexual humor as basically hetero humor, then a little homo humor just levels the field. What I do, I see as the height of tolerance and inclusiveness, though it is perhaps a little too counter-intuitive for most people to read properly.
I might borrow from Dennis Miller's "I don't care what you fvck, just fvck it regularly!" line about bisexuality, but that's a little off the mark, close mind, but not exactly.
You could start with Freud, who's just too entertaining to pass up, or take my favorite feminazi, Judith Butler, but one needs only begin with fashion to start making the case for why homos most likely are what they say are, whilst women who claim to be lesbians are closer to 50/50 -- some are, some are only temporarily so -- and why bisexuality is basically a misnomer.
Then there is the case of ambiguous sexaulity, androgyny, the 3rd gender, and all that other rare biological sexual outlier stuff.
iDunno, if I should do it, now that I've mentioned it, I've been doing a lot of writing lately, and probably want to save some of it for more profitable dreams.
If we might go back to offence for a second... Should people take offence? While it's often great fun when they do, I think people really get way too offended way too easily, most of the time over stuff they shouldn't get offended about in the first place.
Or this could just be a consequence of having a 17 year old mod, and that's perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old brain which is neither fully utlized nor should it be.
A friend of mine(guy) is bi-sexual, he get's a lot of girlfriends, he doesn't have boyfriends or anything, but he is attracted by men as well as girls, it's less so with men though, he's primarily interested in women, but men do also spark his interest somewhat.
that's fairly rare if you ask me.
I guess I'm one of those rare guys who doesn't particularly enjoy the idea of two women together, or being in a threesome situation with two women. I'm a one woman guy. If that's what gets you out of bed in the morning, or gets you into bed, then fine, but it's not for me.
I'm all for sexual freedom and don't think it's really anyone's business who you're doing the nasty with, but I think intelligent life in general and humans in particular have an innate desire to propagate the species. That's fine if you're a woman and you want to have sex with another woman, but even the most militant lesbians are going to need a man's help if they want a child. (Even if you adopt one, it didn't grow on a tree.) So, regardless of whether it feels good or not, if you're having sex with someone of the same gender, basically you're automatically doing it wrong. Have fun, kids.
(And no, I'm not one of those no-sex-before-marriage types, and I'm not religious in the least. I know very well that sex feels good, but I also know there can be a biological purpose to it.)
Originally posted by mlnjr
So, regardless of whether it feels good or not, if you're having sex with someone of the same gender, basically you're automatically doing it wrong.
I've seen this kind of comment before (though usually put more forcefully and with a greater religious emphasis) and it always makes me think about 'normal', married, heterosexual men and women who can't have kids for whatever biological reason.
Now I happen to know of at least one man and one women in this situation (both married, though not to each other) and know that for the woman at least it is utterly heartbreaking. If someone were to suggest that these people were in some way doing 'it' wrong or had no right to do 'it' at all then I would be highly offended and I'm sure they would to.
Originally posted by tonton
Let me interject and say that my girlfriend is bisexual, so please try not to be too offensive.
well, I am sure there is one questions on all our minds.. so... Yes or No??(and you know what we want to know!)
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Now I happen to know of at least one man and one women in this situation (both married, though not to each other) and know that for the woman at least it is utterly heartbreaking. If someone were to suggest that these people were in some way doing 'it' wrong or had no right to do 'it' at all then I would be highly offended and I'm sure they would to.
There are also couples like my wife and I. We are not having any children. It is a choice that we made a long time ago and a choice that we are going to keep.
Does that mean we're not supposed to do 'it' either?
Willoughby, of course your choice is your choice. The fact remains that if you wanted to have children, you could (barring any difficulties with conception, etc.) What I'm saying is that you'd be attempting it the right way.
Edit: I reread stupider...'s post and now understand. In the case of your friends, stupider... I guess it's unfortunate that it's not working out in their favor, but at least they've got the right idea. I doubt the woman you know in that case is saying, "Well I can't have children with this guy I'm having sex with, so I guess I'll go have sex with a woman and see if that works."
I wonder if there have been any scientific studies done on the blood chemistry of bisexuals, that might indicate unusually high levels of hormones or other chemicals related to sex drive. No wait, that would be bigoted. Studies of homosexuals and bisexuals for the purpose of discerning wether or not bio-chemical imbalances play a role, implies there is something wrong with them, which implies hate.
Hmmm.
Well, I for one think most homosexuals are likely to have been born the way they are, because you know... why on God's green earth would a guy who is attracted to Anna Kournakova and her ilk, choose instead to play with a guy's hairy, smelly arse? They simply must not be attracted to women (or men as the case may be) and so they seek the same sex.
Bisexuals however... I dunno. I just can't envision a scenario where people are biologically wired to be equally attracted to both sexes. I think it's a psychological disorder. OOOPS! I must be a bigot. No wait, I don't think Rainman was evil or bad or deserving anyone's wrath -- and he had psychological problems. Nor do I think people who are schizophrenic are deserving of anything but kind treatment...
...but I do think they (psychologically unbalanced individuals) should be medicated if it all practical. That is I think it's key, that in order to treat any psychological / chemical disorder, that you at least have to have the balls to recognize it for what it is and seek ways to remedy the condition. Is it possible that wanting to "cure" bisexuality (I know, we can't say "cure" because it implies disease, which implies hate), is actually an act motivated by kindness and sympathy?
Would bisexuals be happier only being attracted to one or the other sex? I don't know. I just wish people weren't so damn afraid of looking into WHY people are bisexual (or even homosexual). Don't we have even a little curiosity about the science behind it? At a minimum, if you remedy the condition, you save the patient from a lot of stigma, verbal abuse and generally feeling bad about themselves in one way or another (at one time or another).
No that would be bigoted... we musn't even ask ourselves if there is a problem to be remedied. Then we would be close-minded.
Originally posted by Moogs
No that would be bigoted... we musn't even ask ourselves if there is a problem to be remedied. Then we would be close-minded.
Considering the generally horrendous manner in which the mentally ill have been treated and continue to be treated in many cases, you almost certainly don't want people classifying you as having a 'mental problem'.
Also, any passing knowledge of the stuff that has been done to people (even in the recent past) in the name of 'curing' their homo/bisexuality renders your attack on the liberal hegemony less than humorous.
Lobotomies, castration, getting pumped full of hormones (not to mention being locked up with a bunch of loonies), electro-shock therapy and other such nonsense.
As for no research being allowed in this PC world, the research has been done and that's why homo/bisexuality hasn't been classified as a mental illness for over 25 years. (It's not even classed as one in China since last year.)
That's NOT what I'm talking about. Care of the mentally insane and the like is abominable -- I agree 100%. That's a totally separate - and unrelated I might add - issue from what I was suggesting.
Having psychological roots does not equal psychosis.
I am NOT suggesting that we seek to define abnormal - and I mean that in a STRICTLY statistical sense, not a judgemental one (talking bell curves here) - behaviors such as homosexuality (or bisexuality) as being akin to insanity. Hardly. Anyone who has been around relatively large populations of gay and bisexual individuals knows that they are not anymore or less crazy than anyone else.
What I AM suggesting is that - perhaps (I really don't know) - homosexuality (or bisexuality) has causes that are rooted in bio-chemistry, and more to the point are treatable with pharmaceuticals. In the same way someone with ADD may respond favorably to Ritalin, or that a depressed person might respond favorably to Zoloft, a bisexual individual may find that a futuristic drug can curb their appetite for sex with someone OF the same sex. We're talking mild, self-administered treatments here, not stigma and shock therapy.
Now whether or not that is a desirable outcome must be left to the individual. I have watched several documentaries where people who are attracted to those of the same sex genuinely wish that they were not. This drug then would be for them. And the results would undoubtedly be positive. However, we'll never in a million years get to that point if we can't admit that it's worth while to at least investigate these behaviors in a scientific way.
I'm sure studies have been done as you say, but I bet few if any of them had as their goal the idea of uncovering a bio-chemical cause for the behavior. I can almost guarantee it. But feel free to prove me wrong with reputable linkage. BTW, a "reputable" link is one that would not be likely to be suggested by Sammi Jo (for example).
My first post kind of gives the impression I think bisexuals have a psychological (but not bio-chemical) issue, whereas homosexuals must be bio-chemical from birth.
Those are simply my impressions and aren't worth much. The bigger question (bigger than anyone's opinion - including Matsu's
A woman has a mild case of ADD because of the way her nuerons operate under certain conditions (affected by diet (chemical), environment (behavioral) and other things). Am I a close-minded or bigoted person if I am the first to suggest maybe we find a bio-chemical cause for that behavior and remedy it? No.
But if I apply the same line of thinking to say bisexuality. Suddenly I AM a bigot (to society at large if not in here), despite the fact there is basically no difference in the examples. Both conditions do not preclude a "normal" life, yet both can cause great emotional distress, and both (could be) caused by bio-chemical factors that a treatable.
The only difference is we're able to look objectively at ADD, but we're not able to look at homo- or bisexuality objectively, at least not in a clinical sense. Why?
Wouldn't it be better if we looked at the issue objectively and researched the reasons for Wintel aversion so that maybe a cure could be found?
Computers we use, cars we drive, televisions we buy, [snip]: generally NOT biologically driven unless you want to get into the whole thrill seeker / hotrod thing. The point is, one of these things (sex) is something that is encoded into our genetic makeup and body chemistry from the day we're born. At least, for the great majority of people it is (including homosexuals I suspect).
And I'll reiterate again, since I can already sense the hostility (from a person here whom I've always respected and had no trouble with): statistically abnormal does not equal "bad person", "screwed up" or anything else in my view.
I'm simply saying: if we have a large cross-section of these individuals who might've opted for a more (statistically) normal sexual lifestyle, is it so wrong to investigate ways we might help them?
If you love who you are and who you ... do... then OK. Fine. I don't care, you don't care. Everything is peachy. But seems to me we ignore the possibility that many people might prefer to not live with the condition of being attracted to the same sex, were they to have a choice.
No?
Originally posted by tonton
Not yet, but only because there's no suitable candidate right now. She's very picky about both men and women. She said she's done it before, though, but I haven't.
When you guys are out in public, are you suspicious of her checking out guys butts AND girls butts.
That might get a little annoying. Anyone is a possible target of her oogling
Butt brushing is the act of walking just close enough to someone, that you can ever so gently glide the back of your hand across the target booty, leaving said target to wonder forever: was she hitting on me?
Chics will often scope out my butt and attempt a nonchalant butt-brushing when my lady isn't looking, but I never tell because you know -- it could destroy my relationship.
Originally posted by Moogs
...but I do think they (psychologically unbalanced individuals) should be medicated if it all practical.
I think, I find your definition of unbalanced peculiar. Aren't the bisexuals more balanced in their tastes than the hets and gay? What is it that makes people having sexual desire for both sorts of human beings unbalanced?
Is it possible that wanting to "cure" bisexuality (I know, we can't say "cure" because it implies disease, which implies hate), is actually an act motivated by kindness and sympathy?
One should only cure what causes pain. It's not the deviant sexual desire, but the boneheaded reaction of the more conservative and prudish part of society.
Would bisexuals be happier only being attracted to one or the other sex? I don't know. I just wish people weren't so damn afraid of looking into WHY people are bisexual (or even homosexual). Don't we have even a little curiosity about the science behind it? At a minimum, if you remedy the condition, you save the patient from a lot of stigma, verbal abuse and generally feeling bad about themselves in one way or another (at one time or another).
Well, my wife is in fact bi[*], and she is happy with it as it is. I don't believe that changing the brain chemistry of bis is the way to spare them verbal abuse - what would be required is a more sex-positive attitude in the society. Actually, over here in Germany, a lot has changed in the last 100 years and if you choose your friends, you can be reasonably open about being bi without being stigmatized.
I believe, much more money should be invested in finding the reasons not only of bisexuality, but also what is missing in us hets - if there was a pill to broaden my sexual spectrum, I would gladly take it to double the number of people to chose my sex-partners from
[*] Yes, we had threesome with other girls, and yes, it was fun, so eat your hearts out
Moogs is NOT too far off in his discourse on "abnormality"
At the same time, Smircle reads some (maybe most) of the psychologically injurious element rightly, in that it stems often from profound intolerance on the part of a generally conservative society.
I would venture that bisexuality is even rarer than homosexuality, at least in the sense that it comes from a biological (nature or orientation). I think most bisexuals are really just homosexuals or heterosexuals with either some libidinal quirk (very horny, adventurous, thrill seeker, yadda yadda) or some learned social behavior (wavering protest lesbians, for example Anne Heche) Perhaps they even come out of more permissive circles, however, I think that's really a little misleading. I would guess that they come out of more demanding circles -- 3rd/alt gender culture, which often places a heavy importance on performative hedonism.