Wha-? Bisexuality is real???

[BuckyDuckman]

Interesting article from the New York Times,http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/magazine/the-scientific-quest-to-prove-bisexuality-exists.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0, about a group of scientists try to prove bisexuality exists.

Here's my favorite part of the article:

"bisexual . . .They’re misunderstood. They’re ignored. They’re mocked. Even within the gay community, I can’t tell you how many people have told me, ‘Oh, I wouldn’t date a bisexual.’ Or, ‘Bisexuals aren’t real.’ There’s this idea, especially among gay men, that guys who say they’re bisexual are lying, on their way to being gay, or just kind of unserious and unfocused.”

Yep!

 

[MikeyRam]

Interesting article from the New York Times,http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/magazine/the-scientific-quest-to-prove-bisexuality-exists.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0, about a group of scientists try to prove bisexuality exists.

Here's my favorite part of the article:

"bisexual . . .They’re misunderstood. They’re ignored. They’re mocked. Even within the gay community, I can’t tell you how many people have told me, ‘Oh, I wouldn’t date a bisexual.’ Or, ‘Bisexuals aren’t real.’ There’s this idea, especially among gay men, that guys who say they’re bisexual are lying, on their way to being gay, or just kind of unserious and unfocused.”

Yep!

Interesting article

 

[Prince Albert]

Very interesting, very very interesting!!!!

 

[Cabeza]

Great stuff, I hope there's more conversation about it!

 

[bwb58]

Gay people want acceptance and tolerance, but they don't give either.

 

[free2bebiFL]

It's about time folks, besides us bisexuals, start taking us seriously. I receive more acceptance/support from my straight community than my LGBT community. I truly feel bad for my bisexual male friends. They just want to be who they are, and yet I still watch some just pretend they are gay or straight, dependant upon which peers they are with that day.

I cannot tell you how many times I was shot down in college because I "couldn't choose." My lesbian friends always told me that they wouldn't date me because they could not trust me not to leave them for a guy. What, lesbians never cheat on each other? Not a one of them has been in any long term relationship, while I have been faithful to my current partner for almost 17 years. Thankfully, I was given the gift to see past gender.

 

[stickygirl]

The Lesbian and Gay communities arose because they had to form the wagons into a circle against the prejudices of hetero society: the was a political and social need for them to form social 'ghettos'. Bisexuals remain the ghosts in society - if their sexual orientation caused them problems, they could just point to the laws fought for by their lesbian and gay friends. I think there's a resentment amongst the L&G communities who accuse the Bs of flying a flag of convenience, but I'm sure the were Bs who fought alongside them to change laws - someone here will have first hand knowledge of that I'm sure.

As for the "I don't trust you…" response from Gs and Ls - that is the most disingenuous bullshit. If someone were to say that to me, I'd just say "Fine - you don't want to have a relationship with me, but there's no need to assassinate my sexuality based on your prejudice" Using love as a political hostage is older than prostitution and has spawned more tragedies than there are Greeks. People need to grow the fuck up and remember that mutual attraction has no boundaries, certainly not gender based ones. The only boundaries are Western societal ones based on religious bigotry.

 

[robertreams]

Kinsey found a wide range of sexuality between 100% gay and 100% straight. He also found that a large majority of men and women had had at least one sexual encounter with the same sex. That's what your homophobes ae so worried about. Most have triedit and liked it. lol. I personally believe if it were't for homophobia, most people would be bi. At least we all have the physical,(if not the mental) ability to cum fromalll kinds of stimulation

 

[speakerfrank]

Labels Schmabels...

Straight, Bi, Gay. Sex or emotion? Personally, I believe that your sexual orientation is more about emotion than cumming hard. I love a women. But I want to suck a cock. Does that make me gay? I can't see my self in a loving relationship with a guy. The idea of kissing a guy does nothing for me. I have kissed a guy and it was eh. Now when I kissed his wife, that got my mind spinning. Licking pussy, very sexy. Sucking cock, hot. Going to Pottery Barn with my best friend, Nah. Suck his dick, OK. Sex vs. Emotion. How do you define Sexual Preference? My preference and 'orientation' is straight. Cocks, not the guys attached to them.

 

[PricelessT]

Most have triedit and liked it.

I wouldn't state that.

At least we all have the physical,(if not the mental) ability to cum fromalll kinds of stimulation

I wouldn't state that either; research shows otherwise.

 

[downforce]

Straight, Bi, Gay. Sex or emotion? Personally, I believe that your sexual orientation is more about emotion than cumming hard. I love a women. But I want to suck a cock. Does that make me gay? I can't see my self in a loving relationship with a guy. The idea of kissing a guy does nothing for me. I have kissed a guy and it was eh. Now when I kissed his wife, that got my mind spinning. Licking pussy, very sexy. Sucking cock, hot. Going to Pottery Barn with my best friend, Nah. Suck his dick, OK. Sex vs. Emotion. How do you define Sexual Preference? My preference and 'orientation' is straight. Cocks, not the guys attached to them.

Thats where Im at on this. I love everything about women, but I also crave sex with another man. Im also happily married to a woman, and I am sexually and emotionally aroused by her daily. I do enjoy kissing men, but I have zero intentions of having an emotional relationship with one. Guys just dont do it for me like that. Ive been with 3 full-blown gay men, they didnt have a problem with me not being gay. The whole "bi men are bullshitting, theyre just gay in denial" doesnt hold water with me.

I have had the thoughts that maybe I could be gay, but when I started to explore it, I quickly realized that I dont want that, I couldnt form an emotional connection to a guy. I tried more than once, mind you. It just ultimately didnt appeal to me. I dont have a constant guy that I can just randomly call when I have the urge, or he does too. One that knows thats all its about, taking care of mutual needs.

 

[Queen_Vicki]

Scientists can be full of shit sometimes. They said in 2005, that bisexuals don't exist, so I can't go by what a group of bullshiters say

 

[PricelessT]

Scientists can be full of shit sometimes. They said in 2005, that bisexuals don't exist, so I can't go by what a group of bullshiters say

That was more so about male bisexuality, the J. Michael Bailey study that was criticized by some LGBT groups and scientists...as seen here and here. Bailey did recant a bit on the matter, though, as seen here. And this source states that Bailey never stated that bisexual men don't exist. Still, many scientists don't believe that male sexuality is as flexible as female sexuality and tend to feel that women are more prone to be bisexual or engage in same-sex sexual activity even if they are not bisexual (partly because society is more accepting of female same-sex sexuality than male same-sex sexuality); of course...some call bullshit on those views as well.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

That was more so about male bisexuality, the J. Michael Bailey study that was criticized by some LGBT groups and scientists...as seen here and here. Bailey did recant a bit on the matter, though, as seen here. And this source states that Bailey never stated that bisexual men don't exist. Still, many scientists don't believe that male sexuality is as flexible as female sexuality and tend to feel that women are more prone to be bisexual or engage in same-sex sexual activity even if they are not bisexual (partly because society is more accepting of female same-sex sexuality than male same-sex sexuality); of course...some call bullshit on those views as well.

Interesting stuff.

I'd like to propose a few things:
If we can accept for a moment that the definition of "sex" requires one partner purposely engaging genitals with another partner with the intent of generating an orgasm for one or the other - I believe it opens up quite a few things.

Two women kissing wouldn't be considered gay or lesbian action, per se, because genitals aren't involved and no one is likely to have an orgasm.

Same would probably be true of breast stimulation.

However, the moment you finger another girl, allow another girl to finger you, touch another man's erect prick or allow another man to touch your erect prick, you're having sex.

Now, if we eliminate who's doing what, just to further level the playing field, then I think we'll end up with a very different idea. For example, some guys will claim, if they stick their dick inside a gloryhole and get a blow job from another man, that's somehow not gay. I'd like to eliminate that excuse for a moment. Doesn't matter if you're the toucher or touchee - the sucker or the suckee - if you're doing it with a member of the same sex, you're having a gay experience.

IF we further decide to define "bisexuality" as someone who has sex with either gender and we apply the above logic, I think the number of bisexual people climbs to new heights.

I, for one, believe bisexuality is the "norm" and pure heterosexuality would be abnormal. Once you've sexually engaged with a member of the same sex, you're bi, whether that's how you define yourself or not. A truly heterosexual person wouldn't experiment or "just play around" or whatever other excuse people like to give.

From that moment onward, your selection of sexual partners isn't based on whether you "bi" or "straight" or "gay" as much as it is based on personal preference and/or opportunity.

So, maybe there's a guy who is really curious about being with another guy, but he NEVER acts on it. Not sure I would consider that person to be "bisexual." Instead, they're someone who wants to be bisexual.

Meanwhile, the girl got drunk and lost her virginity to "some guy in a bar" but otherwise has only had sex with other girls IS "bisexual."

Just my thoughts.

 

[NoMoreNoMore]

BuckyDuckman wrote:
"I, for one, believe bisexuality is the "norm" and pure heterosexuality would be abnormal. Once you've sexually engaged with a member of the same sex, you're bi, whether that's how you define yourself or not. A truly heterosexual person wouldn't experiment or "just play around" or whatever other excuse people like to give.

From that moment onward, your selection of sexual partners isn't based on whether you "bi" or "straight" or "gay" as much as it is based on personal preference and/or opportunity.

So, maybe there's a guy who is really curious about being with another guy, but he NEVER acts on it. Not sure I would consider that person to be "bisexual." Instead, they're someone who wants to be bisexual.

Meanwhile, the girl got drunk and lost her virginity to "some guy in a bar" but otherwise has only had sex with other girls IS "bisexual."

Just my thoughts."

I kind of agree with this thought. You have to wonder if bisexuality became more accepted if we wouldn't hear about more people being bi. When I was a kid, you never heard about people being gay. And if you did, they were usually being beaten up or tortured in some way by supposedly straight people. Yet, we fast forward and as gays and lesbians ever so slowly slide into mainstream society, we become more aware of them. Take Ellen D., she is very outspoken and has a popular show, hosts awards shows, etc. We find out that popular lead actors like Cary Grant and Randolph Scott were actually gay. Then again, were they gay or were they really bi, but because we love to pigeon-hole, once you have had a relationship with a man, you are gay, blam!
When I had a breakdown almost 20 years ago, I had to go through counseling with a number of psychs. We visited my sexuality. It was rather traumatic to let go of what everyone else expected me to be, and to look long and hard at what I was attracted to. I differ with a previous poster that stated that you aren't bi unless you have acted, because sometimes you may be attracted, but have not or cannot act on it. In my case, when we discussed things and my psych suggested that I might be bi, I had no clue. I was under the impression, like most, that it was an either/or proposition. She advised me that our sexual desire ran a spectrum, that it wasn't black and white. She said the only way for me to know for sure was to try.
The problem with that was that I was in the middle of a rather nasty divorce where she wanted to keep my kids from me. The last thing I needed to do was add that into the mix and give her more weapons. In the meantime, I met a wonderful woman. I got married and am now bound to be faithful to her. So I have never experienced being with a man. Does that, as someone else stated, make me not bi? Is experience the only measure? Or does desire come into the mix? Frankly, I am attracted to eyes and personality first. I am attracted to a nice butt. I like women's breasts. However, if I look at a picture where a woman has her legs spread and spreading her lips, it is a turn off. Don't get me wrong, I would go down on her and bring her as much pleasure as I can, but I am not attracted to a pussy. However, if I watch a video of a guy getting a blowjob, I am totally engrossed. When my wife no longer desired sex, she green-lighted me to look at porn. I watched a few and then happened to go to the gay side of the site. I found I could really get off on gay porn too. I seem to be a little more selective in gay porn, no heavy tats, no leather, no washboard, and no bears. So there is an attraction to men. Yet, I have not experienced, so according to some I am not bi. Then again, by that measure, these days, I am not hetero either. I am asexual.

 

[haurni]

I respectfully disagree with almost all of what BuckyDuckman said.

If we can accept for a moment that the definition of "sex" requires one partner purposely engaging genitals with another partner with the intent of generating an orgasm for one or the other - I believe it opens up quite a few things.

As the saying goes, the most important sexual organ is the brain. Sex is about more than just genital-genital contact. I would go so far as to argue that one individual masturbating in front of another willing individual is a sexual act, as is one person orally stimulating another's nipples, if either is done for the purposes of sexual stimulation. By BD's definition, someone groping a woman's breasts without consent is not sexual assault per se, and exposing oneself is not a sexual offence (not that I think BD is sugguesting that at all).

Doesn't matter if you're the toucher or touchee - the sucker or the suckee - if you're doing it with a member of the same sex, you're having a gay experience.

True as far as it goes. But sexuality is fluid over time and also situational. Some people may have homosexual experiences, willingly or otherwise, yet still not consider themselves gay. The act may have been a homosexual one, but the person is not necessarily gay (or bisexual). To argue otherwise is to say that because you're a guy and you touched your best friend's dick on a dare when you were a kid, you're now gay (or bi) for life.

IF we further decide to define "bisexuality" as someone who has sex with either gender and we apply the above logic, I think the number of bisexual people climbs to new heights.

Also true as far as it goes. Leaving aside the methodological criticisms of his work, Kinsey said that something like a third of men had had homosexual experiences of one sort or another (actually, 37%). This doesn't mean that a third of men are bi.

I, for one, believe bisexuality is the "norm" and pure heterosexuality would be abnormal. Once you've sexually engaged with a member of the same sex, you're bi, whether that's how you define yourself or not. A truly heterosexual person wouldn't experiment or "just play around" or whatever other excuse people like to give.

Again, sexuality is fluid. Many people go through a period in their teens or thereabouts where they try different things, often including same-sex interactions. Some people will like it and wish to continue it, most will not. I believe that the human animal is designed by evolution to be predominantly heterosexual (in order to reliably propagate the species) but that it's not an on-off/binary thing, and because of that it means that there will always be some fluidity in sexual expression. In a sense, bi- and homosexuality and gender variance and all those other things are 'built in' precisely because we are not binary. I think that the number of people who are exclusively heterosexual (0 on Kinsey's scale) and who never even have thoughts about same-sex interactions and display no arousal to images of them is small (10-20%?), but that most people are in the 1-2 range. Most of them may never try it, making them strictly het for all practical purposes.

So, maybe there's a guy who is really curious about being with another guy, but he NEVER acts on it. Not sure I would consider that person to be "bisexual." Instead, they're someone who wants to be bisexual.

I'd call him 'curious' unless he knows for sure that he is sexually and/or emotionally attracted to other men, in which case he's definitely bi, even if he's never had the experience. On the other hand, someone can know they're gay without ever having had sex. If this guy had his dick sucked by another man and didn't like it, he's effectively straight. The 'guys who like dick but aren't gay' (aka MSM, men who have sex with men) are obviously not exclusively straight, but neither would I really call them bi because their interactions are highly circumscribed. I'd give them a 1 or 2 on Kinsey's scale. If you take the extreme situation of a bunch of men trapped on a desert island since they were kids, you'd end up classifying them all as gay on the basis of their behaviour, yet if they'd grown up in a large city most of them would be heterosexual.

Meanwhile, the girl got drunk and lost her virginity to "some guy in a bar" but otherwise has only had sex with other girls IS "bisexual."

If her preference is for women but she had sex with a guy one time and decided she didn't care for it, I'd probably call her a lesbian (except she lost her gold star).

One experience with the same sex does not make one bi or gay, and one experience with the opposite sex does not make one bi or straight. Recognize also that people don't necessarily all align the same way in their sexual, aesthetic, emotional or relationship attractions, so someone can enjoy gay sex but connect better with the opposite sex in an emotional sense. The focus is not so much on behaviour, which is situational, but on interests and intent - sexual orientation is more about what you want than what (or who) you do.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I respectfully disagree with almost all of what BuckyDuckman said.

You're absolutely fine doing so and I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Here's what I'm not sure came across clearly in my thoughts: I was attempting to push the envelope. I would agree, if someone fantasizes about the same gender (though never has the opportunity to act upon it), it could suggest they are at least bi and potentially gay/lesbian. However, without action, it remains conjecture. Does same sex fantasies qualify someone as bi or gay? I don't think so. If we apply that logic to "well, I think about it a lot," then does having a rape fantasy make one a rapist? I don't believe it does anymore than dreaming about imaginative ways to kill the guy who cut me off in traffic makes me a murderer.

As the saying goes, the most important sexual organ is the brain. Sex is about more than just genital-genital contact. I would go so far as to argue that one individual masturbating in front of another willing individual is a sexual act, as is one person orally stimulating another's nipples, if either is done for the purposes of sexual stimulation. By BD's definition, someone groping a woman's breasts without consent is not sexual assault per se, and exposing oneself is not a sexual offence (not that I think BD is sugguesting that at all).

You are correct, exposing yourself or groping someone should (and does) qualify as a sexual offense. However, I believe you're missing how I was seeking to narrow the definition. I was hoping to remove b.s. arguments like, "Well isn't breast feeding incest?" Or, "I kissed a girl and liked it." No, I wanted to raise the bar a bit to see what would happen. And, with raising the bar, I'm suggesting someone has to be touching someone's genitals with the expressed intent of creating an orgasm. A doctor doing an exam wouldn't count. Casually touching someone else doesn't count. Someone has to be doing it purposely. And, for the reasons I've already listed, I'm suggesting we toss out "thinking about it," too. There's a method this little exercise that will become clear in a moment.

True as far as it goes. But sexuality is fluid over time and also situational. Some people may have homosexual experiences, willingly or otherwise, yet still not consider themselves gay. The act may have been a homosexual one, but the person is not necessarily gay (or bisexual). To argue otherwise is to say that because you're a guy and you touched your best friend's dick on a dare when you were a kid, you're now gay (or bi) for life.

I think we can leave out prison rape, unless you're the rapist. And touching your best friend's dick on a dare? Doesn't quite rise to the level of doing it with the expressed intent of creating an orgasm, so I think you're safe there. (You, her, him, whomever.)

Also true as far as it goes. Leaving aside the methodological criticisms of his work, Kinsey said that something like a third of men had had homosexual experiences of one sort or another (actually, 37%). This doesn't mean that a third of men are bi.

Ah, here we are! IF one guy touched another guy's dick with the expressed intent of getting the other guy off - guess what? Both those guys are now bi in my book. Doesn't matter how many times it happened. Doesn't matter if it only happened that "one time, when I was really drunk." If you did it, you did it. Either you allowed that guy to suck you off or you willing went down on your friend - either way, that's a damn homosexual experience. I don't know that I would include a circle jerk as homosexual (though it has strong overtones of being that), unless one of the guys reached over and gave a helping hand. Then we're back to it - BOOM! - provided you have sex with a woman, too, you're bisexual.

I'm going to frustrate a lot of people with what I'm about to say next, too. First, let me protect Lit's butt by saying this: Because of Lit's underage rules, we must acknowledge everything I'm describing would be happening to 18 year old people. Now, let's imagine that you're fooling around with your buddy and it happens before you ever got laid by a woman. You're watching lesbian porn together, checking out the women, dreaming about the day when you're going to be the one going down on a hot chick and both of you get hard. So, you both start jerking off. Then, your buddy says, "Yo, if you promise never to tell anyone, I'll give you a blowjob."

Now, you know you want to be with chicks. You know HE wants to be with chicks, too. But you're just fooling around as guys might do at a certain age. But guess what? As soon as you let his warm, wet lips wrap around your hard, eighteen year old dick - you and him became gay. Not bisexual, but GAY! Start shopping for china and seeing if your state allows same sex marriage, because until you have sex with a girl, you, my friend, are gay!

I don't care if you "only did it once" or "we were drunk" or "but we were watching lesbian porn!" You did it with another guy and you've none done it with a girl - BOOM! You're gay!

Again, sexuality is fluid. Many people go through a period in their teens or thereabouts where they try different things, often including same-sex interactions.

Agreed. Sexuality IS fluid and many people do experiment. However, see the above. It's still true in my book!

. . . I believe that the human animal is designed by evolution to be predominantly heterosexual (in order to reliably propagate the species) but that it's not an on-off/binary thing, and because of that it means that there will always be some fluidity in sexual expression. In a sense, bi- and homosexuality and gender variance and all those other things are 'built in' precisely because we are not binary. I think that the number of people who are exclusively heterosexual (0 on Kinsey's scale) and who never even have thoughts about same-sex interactions and display no arousal to images of them is small (10-20%?), but that most people are in the 1-2 range. Most of them may never try it, making them strictly het for all practical purposes.

I think sex is more fun with a woman, personally. And most of the women I know, think it's more fun with a man. However, without society placing taboo restrictions on sexuality, how can we guess what behavior might be? An orgasm is an orgasm. Personally, I won't do a fat chick (or guy, but that's irrelevant). Is my anti-fat chick stance hard wired? Sure feels that way, because I've turned down LOTS of fat chicks.

I do respect your "for all practical purposes" comment as ringing true, except within the confines of my argument. I'm tossing out the "for all practical purposes" element and trying to make a bigger point: if you had sex with member of your gender, you're bisexual - period. End of discussion. Doesn't matter if it only happened once, you were drunk, whatever - if it happened, it happened and you should own it. If you only murdered one person, you're still a murderer. If only raped one person, you're still a rapist. Can you become a reformed murder or rapist? Sure you can. But you are what you are. Because if you weren't that - you would have done it in the first place.

I'd call him 'curious' unless he knows for sure that he is sexually and/or emotionally attracted to other men, in which case he's definitely bi, even if he's never had the experience. On the other hand, someone can know they're gay without ever having had sex. If this guy had his dick sucked by another man and didn't like it, he's effectively straight. The 'guys who like dick but aren't gay' (aka MSM, men who have sex with men) are obviously not exclusively straight, but neither would I really call them bi because their interactions are highly circumscribed. I'd give them a 1 or 2 on Kinsey's scale. If you take the extreme situation of a bunch of men trapped on a desert island since they were kids, you'd end up classifying them all as gay on the basis of their behaviour, yet if they'd grown up in a large city most of them would be heterosexual.

Here's where I see you squirming to qualify things. I don't disagree with most of what you say, but neither can I accept it within the confines of my original argument.

If her preference is for women but she had sex with a guy one time and decided she didn't care for it, I'd probably call her a lesbian (except she lost her gold star).

Sorry, but again - she's bisexual. As soon as she willingly had sex with a guy, she became bi (as far as this weird little discussion goes). I'm sticking by that for a reason that's coming up.

One experience with the same sex does not make one bi or gay, and one experience with the opposite sex does not make one bi or straight.

Sorry, but attempting to disqualify my original premise. Having a sexual experience with both genders, by it's very description, makes one bisexual. Does it mean you're going to continue to be a "practicing" bisexual? Maybe/Maybe not. As you point out, maybe she didn't like it. But it doesn't change the definition.


So - where does all this take us? Here's where I think it takes us: there's a shitload of "gay" people in the world walking around in denial and a shitload of "straight" people doing the same thing. I, for one, believe the world would be a better place if we get off our high horses and admit the truth about ourselves.


One final thought in this too long of a post - a joke:
Back during the days of segregation, it was accepted that white people sat in the front of the bus while people of color sat in the back. One day, a school bus driver got tired of hearing the constant name calling that went on between the front of the bus and the back of the bus. The white kids kept calling the black kids names. The black kids kept calling the white kids name and this bus driver had had enough. He stopped the bus, told everyone to get off and read them the riot act.

"I'm so tired of whitey this and blackie that," he admonished his riders. "Enough is enough. When we get back on that bus, every single one of are green, do you hear me? GREEN!" He waited until the kids nodded in agreement before opening the doors and saying, "Okay, get back on the bus. Light green in the front and dark green in the back."

 

[haurni]

I agree that, as you define gay/straight/bi, your thesis is correct. I just don't agree with a definition that's entirely founded on behaviour. That's where we're differing, mostly.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I agree that, as you define gay/straight/bi, your thesis is correct. I just don't agree with a definition that's entirely founded on behaviour. That's where we're differing, mostly.

You raise lot of good and reasonable points. I would agree, behavior isn't the sole determinant. By picking on only behavior, I hoped to emphasis is the hypocrisy aimed at bisexuals, especially male bisexuals, by both the straight and the gay community. I have a dear friend who is a serial monogamist. She has been in marriage type relationships with a man, then a woman (marriage type, because same sex marriage wasn't an option at the time), and now she's happily married again to another man. She self-identifies as "bisexual." In truth, she's swung from being a practicing heterosexual to a practicing lesbian and now back to being a practicing heterosexual. I guess, under your explanation, she could call herself "straight" when she's exclusive to a man and "lesbian" when she's exclusive to a woman and then back to "straight" again. But, if she did so, wouldn't that deny her past? That's sort of my point, too.

 

[stickygirl]

BD & Haurni - having read your discussion, I'd like to throw in my own penny's worth. I can't accept that touching another person's genitals defines a person's sexual orientation, because it's an objective definition. I go with a subjective one: how do those people define themselves? I think there's merit to that, because to go round saying to adult men that if they've played around with another mans dick when they were both "18" they are bisexual is likely to create more problems than it solves. I understand your motivation: to destigmatise bisexuality, but what you're suggesting sounds like outing to me.

Just to really throw a spanner into it: I first has sex with a man before my gender was officially changed to female. So under BD's definition I was gay, but my gayness has now been rescinded because I am female. Don't worry though - it confused the hell out of me too.
Just for the record, I regard myself as bisexual but I can't be because I haven't yet had sex with a woman. I damn well demand to be called bisexual! I know my rights!

 

[BuckyDuckman]

BD & Haurni - having read your discussion, I'd like to throw in my own penny's worth. I can't accept that touching another person's genitals defines a person's sexual orientation, because it's an objective definition. I go with a subjective one: how do those people define themselves? I think there's merit to that, because to go round saying to adult men that if they've played around with another mans dick when they were both "18" they are bisexual is likely to create more problems than it solves. I understand your motivation: to destigmatise bisexuality, but what you're suggesting sounds like outing to me.

Just to really throw a spanner into it: I first has sex with a man before my gender was officially changed to female. So under BD's definition I was gay, but my gayness has now been rescinded because I am female. Don't worry though - it confused the hell out of me too.
Just for the record, I regard myself as bisexual but I can't be because I haven't yet had sex with a woman. I damn well demand to be called bisexual! I know my rights!

Gotta love the world and its diversity, you know?!

Transgender people certainly fall outside my point. I would suggest that your first sex was heterosexual, regardless of matching body parts.

Another issue I didn't bring up was the idea of a guy who enjoys taking it up the ass with a strap-on administered by his girlfriend. As controversial as my stance might be - I would suggest that still qualifies as heterosexual sex.

Now, I'm saying that for two reasons. 1) Because I get damn tired of the idiot men who say "I'd never let my girlfriend touch my asshole, because it's gay." Um, no. It's called a prostrate massage (if she does it right) and it feels amazing. 2) Saying that goes against my "purpose" of out-ting more people as bisexual.

Stickygirl - you're 100% correct to accuse me of trying to out people as bisexual. That's precisely what I'm doing. For years, the gay community would out people as a way of drawing attention to gay/lesbian people as "normal, healthy and contributing members of society." While I often thought it was cruel to out someone who wasn't ready for it - I'm using that tool in my own subversive way.

Personally, I get tired of people drawing boxes around each other and trying to label a person as this or maybe one of these over here or possible they're one of THOSE kinds of people. Guess what? We're ALL people. Every one of us.

 

[stickygirl]

Gotta love the world and its diversity, you know?!
Transgender people certainly fall outside my point. I would suggest that your first sex was heterosexual, regardless of matching body parts.

You pass GO and collect $1000

I'm using that tool in my own subversive way.

I've heard that about bisexual men

Agreed - labels are not always helpful

 

[haurni]

I go with a subjective one: how do those people define themselves?

I think this is the way to go. Behaviour itself is not a hard and fast indicator of what's going on in people's heads, simply because it's situational. Obviously, behaviour means something, but it's not everything - we use it to gain insight into what people feel or believe, but there may be reasons why it doesn't always point us in the right direction. People do things for a variety of reasons, not necessarily because they want or like something or feel that it's 'right' for them. Or maybe they want to do something but just haven't had the opportunity (or the guts). That shouldn't be discounted.

Just for the record, I regard myself as bisexual but I can't be because I haven't yet had sex with a woman. I damn well demand to be called bisexual! I know my rights!

You've got my vote.


Here's a follow-up article on the subject of bisexuality:

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2014/03/8_questions_about_bisexuality.php

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I think this is the way to go. Behaviour itself is not a hard and fast indicator of what's going on in people's heads, simply because it's situational. Obviously, behaviour means something, but it's not everything - we use it to gain insight into what people feel or believe, but there may be reasons why it doesn't always point us in the right direction. People do things for a variety of reasons, not necessarily because they want or like something or feel that it's 'right' for them. Or maybe they want to do something but just haven't had the opportunity (or the guts). That shouldn't be discounted.


You've got my vote.


Here's a follow-up article on the subject of bisexuality:

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2014/03/8_questions_about_bisexuality.php

Great article!!!! Especially the first part for me,

"8. Why don't people believe bisexuals when they say, "I'm bisexual?"

Bisexuals don't go around asking straight people if they're "confused" or going through a "phase." Indeed, heterosexuality is presumed until explicitly stated otherwise. Coming out as gay (for the most part) is not met with a chorus of "nuh uh!" Most people's sexual orientations and identities are taken at the word of their beholders. But this isn't the case for bisexuality. Why? Why do we think all bi men are "closet-cases" and bi women are "lesbians until graduation"? Part of is has to do with stereotypes, of course, but it's a curious conundrum nonetheless, especially when you consider that more Americans believe in angels and Santa Claus than bisexuals."

 

[PricelessT]

Now, let's imagine that you're fooling around with your buddy and it happens before you ever got laid by a woman. You're watching lesbian porn together, checking out the women, dreaming about the day when you're going to be the one going down on a hot chick and both of you get hard. So, you both start jerking off. Then, your buddy says, "Yo, if you promise never to tell anyone, I'll give you a blowjob."

Now, you know you want to be with chicks. You know HE wants to be with chicks, too. But you're just fooling around as guys might do at a certain age. But guess what? As soon as you let his warm, wet lips wrap around your hard, eighteen year old dick - you and him became gay. Not bisexual, but GAY! Start shopping for china and seeing if your state allows same sex marriage, because until you have sex with a girl, you, my friend, are gay!

I don't care if you "only did it once" or "we were drunk" or "but we were watching lesbian porn!" You did it with another guy and you've none done it with a girl - BOOM! You're gay!



Agreed. Sexuality IS fluid and many people do experiment. However, see the above. It's still true in my book!



I think sex is more fun with a woman, personally. And most of the women I know, think it's more fun with a man. However, without society placing taboo restrictions on sexuality, how can we guess what behavior might be? An orgasm is an orgasm. Personally, I won't do a fat chick (or guy, but that's irrelevant). Is my anti-fat chick stance hard wired? Sure feels that way, because I've turned down LOTS of fat chicks.

I do respect your "for all practical purposes" comment as ringing true, except within the confines of my argument. I'm tossing out the "for all practical purposes" element and trying to make a bigger point: if you had sex with member of your gender, you're bisexual - period. End of discussion. Doesn't matter if it only happened once, you were drunk, whatever - if it happened, it happened and you should own it. If you only murdered one person, you're still a murderer. If only raped one person, you're still a rapist. Can you become a reformed murder or rapist? Sure you can. But you are what you are. Because if you weren't that - you would have done it in the first place.

Sorry, but again - she's bisexual. As soon as she willingly had sex with a guy, she became bi (as far as this weird little discussion goes). I'm sticking by that for a reason that's coming up.


Sorry, but attempting to disqualify my original premise. Having a sexual experience with both genders, by it's very description, makes one bisexual. Does it mean you're going to continue to be a "practicing" bisexual? Maybe/Maybe not. As you point out, maybe she didn't like it. But it doesn't change the definition.

While I appreciate your views bringing something different to the topic, they don't hold up with regard to science or generally people's experiences (according to the vast majority of research). When studying sexuality, scientists and other researchers generally distinguish between sexual orientation (what they generally view as the enduring sexual attraction), sexual behavior (what sexual act someone might have engaged in) and sexual identity (how someone views their sexuality). If they did not, then the vast majority of those who identify as gay or lesbian would be termed "bisexual," since, according to various studies, the vast majority of those who identify as gay or lesbian have engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex...due to peer pressure or heteronormativity (trying to be heterosexual because society generally treats heterosexuality as the norm and every non-heterosexual sexuality as abnormal) or curiosity, which is often due to heteronormativity.

From all of my research on sexuality, and having heard or read comments from many in the LGBT community, I know that it can be a terrible idea to base sexual orientation mainly or only on sexual behavior. For example, it does not make any kind of sense to me to call a gay man who didn't enjoy sex with women "bisexual" and simply because he had sex with women. And (except for a person changing their sexual identity) it doesn't make any sense to me to state that someone "became gay," considering that I don't believe people "become gay (homosexual)." Or "become straight (heterosexual)," for that matter. It's what is in the mind that makes someone straight or gay, etc., and that aspect is quite different than murder or rape. Scientists generally don't think that a person is born a murderer or a rapist, that there is a "murderer mind" or "rapist mind." Notice that I stated "generally." Do some of them think that certain human brains are more prone to contribute to the person in question being a murderer or a rapist? Sure. But born to be either or both? Generally no. By contrast, scientists often do think that a person is born with a sexual orientation; generally (just like some scientists think of murderers or rapists), they believe that sexual orientation is a complex combination of biology and social environment; with sexual orientation, they generally think it's already developed by the time adolescence hits (like this American Psychological Association source on sexual orientation notes, in its "How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?" section) and generally cannot be changed after that point, though an adolescent (especially a LGBT one) might experience confusion over their sexual orientation and might explore their sexuality by engaging in sexual activity with both sexes. You stated "Because if you weren't that - you would [not] have done it in the first place." But what you seem to be neglecting, among other things, is that many LGBT people "d[o] it in the first place" to try and be heterosexual. And as for the definition of bisexual (when being defined in terms of sexuality), it's defined by reliable sources, dictionary sources included, far more by sexual attraction than it is by sexual acts.