Is no one "straight"?

[Kassiana]

I don't believe so. I am not in the least bisexual myself, but I see and hear people saying things like "everyone's bi" sometimes.

Do you believe, despite my knowledge of myself and what turns me on, that I must be bisexual? Or do you accept that yes, there are some people who are not at all turned on by the same sex?

For myself, I KNOW there are some people who aren't turned on by the same sex. I'm one of them.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Or do you accept that yes, there are some people who are not at all turned on by the same sex?

Yep and more power to 'em.

~lucky

 

[BlackShanglan]

I've come to think that in many ways, there is a deeper philosophical divide between "100%" and "90%" than there is between gay and straight. That is, there seem to be at least as many fundamental differences between people who can desire either sex and people who can only desire one as there are between people who prefer their own gender and people who prefer the opposite. At times I find it difficult to understand people who absolutely cannot experience desire for both genders, but I do believe that they exist and are sincere. I think that perhaps they must be considerably more interested in physical bodies than I am, but then I am on the very esoteric end of sex in that desire for me is rooted almost entirely in the mind. Call me a Gnostic pervert if you like.

Shanglan

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Damn you're sexy when you spew philosophy, you Gnostic pervert!

~lucky

 

[Belegon]

Hmmm....

Physically, my attraction is to the female of the species. But mentally?

I don't get the same sexual response from an attractive man that I would get from a woman, but I can recognize the attractiveness. Flirting, which is primarily a mental/emotional interaction, I can do with anyone , regardless of gender, if I am attracted to them on either physical or meta-physical terms...

I think there are just flat-out single gender focused people, gay and straight. I am not entirely certain I am one of them. I think there are people who refuse to be limited to only one half of the available partners. I think there are people who consider gender to be almost irrelevant. I am not bi-curious at this time, but I could not completely rule out that possibility in the future.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

This may not go over well, but...


There is more evidence toward the idea that the thesis "Everyone is at least a little bisexual" is simply false than there is evidence that it is true. We can only go on the limited studies that have been done (human sexuality with regard to sexual preference just isn't high on the priority of research done in psychology) and the wealth of anectodal evidence.

The research is greatly inconclusive and incomplete, so we're left with a huge pool of anecdotal evidence. As such, we have people that re-affirm the thesis based on "people they know" or themselves or such... and we have people that contradict the thesis by saying "I have zero attraction to members of the opposite sex" or "I have zero attraction to members of the same sex" (homosexual or heterosexual, respectively).

It takes only one case of someone being absoutely sexual one way or the other to defeat the thesis of "EVERYONE is". General hyopothesis stating some positive ("Everyone is", for example) are refuted by giving just one case of how it is not. Arguments of "well, they are but they just don't know it" are indefeasible. The moment we start doubting their direct knowledge of themselves, we're bound to doubt the direct knowledge of those that say "I'm both" (possibly saying that they only assert as much out of some deep-seeded need to be special or different).

So... in the end?

It isn't certain. It is ONLY possible (we can't even say "probable, given the lack of evidence). People that assert that it's definitely true are blinding themselves to basic, simple logic in favor of personal preference.

 

[Seattle Zack]

This is admittedly anecdotal experience, but I think that women are more apt to be "truly" bisexual than men, by a large margin. In fact, I know very few (well, not any, truth be told) men that are truly "bi" by my understanding.

A few disclaimers, before the rants about homophobia and misogyny begin. I live in Capitol Hill in Seattle, a predominately gay neighborhood. The sex club that I belong to, the Wet Spot, has more than 60% gay membership. I have dozens of gay friends, both male and female. (One of them actually helped me redecorate my apartment recently, did a bang-up job, pun intended.)

That being said, what is the definition of bisexual? Not curious, or experimental, but truly bisexual? I think that it's the capacity to carry on a monogamous, committed relationship with someone of either sex.

From my experience (anecdotal, of course, I have no surveys or anything to back this up) is that there are some truly bisexual women who can do this. I know several, in fact, who have had long-term committed relationships with both women and men. It never seemed to matter to them, they were equally attracted to both genders. I know no men who have.

Personally, I'm not attracted to men in the least, but I do understand (from talking to friends of mine who are gay) that attraction. Likewise, from conversations with women who are bi or gay, I can understand them as well.

So I know many gay men and gay women and "truly" bi women ... but no "truly" bi men.

Just my experience.

 

[rgraham666]

I can speak only for myself. But I'm very straight.

Like Belegon I can appreciate the attractiveness of a man, but it's without any sexual component.

Actually, for the most part, I don't like men at all. Most are testosterone addled jackasses.

 

[Guest]

i suppose i just dont care either way, so, why post?
possibly because i have nothing better to do at the moment.
IMHO
it just doesnt matter about sexual orientation.
why do we care?
should we care?
ive been thinking about this for a while and i really dont see why it matters, in most situations.
i used to be straight...then bi...now lesbian. how does that affect anyone outside my own home? answer: it doesnt. was i hardwired this way or just became this way... i dont care, fact is...i am who i am.

hrm

 

[Guest]

I'm straight. As in, only men turn me on. I can't say I've ever had any fantasies or sexual urges about another woman, seriously.

But, I might be persuaded to indulge in a bit of minge (am I the only straight in the village? ) - if a bloke was present.

I have had one brief same sex experience, but that was on a bit of a dare, with two men present. The men being there was the turn on for me.

Lou - men lover

 

[impressive]

At times I find it difficult to understand people who absolutely cannot experience desire for both genders, but I do believe that they exist and are sincere.

I'll second that.

 

[impressive]

I think there are people who consider gender to be almost irrelevant.

Not even "almost." Certainly IS irrelevant (to me). It's the mind that attracts. The visual might turn my head, but only the mind can make my heart follow.

 

[carsonshepherd]

I am not bi-curious at this time, but I could not completely rule out that possibility in the future.

Sorry... the testosterone has addled my brain so much I can't answer the question.... can only think about this sentence...

 

[minsue]

Sorry... the testosterone has addled my brain so much I can't answer the question.... can only think about this sentence...

I was wondering when you'd find that post.

 

[amicus]

I am happy to note that the entire year did not pass without a post by rgraham666 that I could agree with:

"...Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 2668
I can speak only for myself. But I'm very straight.

Like Belegon I can appreciate the attractiveness of a man, but it's without any sexual component.

Actually, for the most part, I don't like men at all. Most are testosterone addled jackasses...."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the other hand...and with the usual risks...


In the event there are some underaged readers who lied, or of age but young who are uncertain, or even of age and seeking answers and understanding...

The moral climate of the western world has changed greatly in the past half century.

I personally think that the horrors of two world wars, the crisis of the great depression and the diversification of organized religion along with the scandals that have accompanied religious institutions has left a vacuum in moral certainty.

This is not a Ph.d thesis, thus I offer only an outline, not a scholarly tract. Surely there are other factors one could include in the above introduction.

Joe Wordsworth in his post is an example of a scholarly quest to just discuss a subject. Moral relativism has left most intellectuals impotent to discuss morality on a rational basis.

Morality in the mid 20th century, in general, purported that sexual activity was reserved for a man and a woman under a marriage contract.

Any disagreement there? Thas the way it was.

Multiple sexual partners, promiscuity, was frowned upon for men and forbidden to women. There is a small caveat, the lower classes, without moral guidance, did whatever they pleased.

Any disagreement there?

Abortion was a criminal offense until Roe v Wade in the 1970's.

Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder until about 1973.

Any disagreement there?

A female was expected to be a virgin, without sexual experience at marriage. "expected' is the operative word, it was a social and a 'moral' expectation. Thas the way it was, like it or not.

Any disagreement there?

Well, this is not your Grandfather's morality as we venture into 2005.

So, what is 'moral' now?

What can you do and not do to feel, 'good' about your inner self?

How do you decide, how do you know?

In this quagmire of relativistic morality, secular humanism, you cannot know, you cannot decide. There are no 'given' or 'absolute' moral imperatives by which you can decide if an activity is moral or immoral; good or bad.

For those who are serious in your quest to 'know' there are hundreds and thousands of books discussing morality. Most of them are mired in past religious moral commandments and thus basically useless as they require 'belief' instead of knowledge.

I have tried before on this forum to speak of moral absolutes and been hung out to dry so I will not do so at this time.

However, for those of you who do seek answers, absolute answers, so that you may 'know' what is right and what is wrong, I would offer that there are answers.

While JoeW cannot intellectually take the leap, I can and so state that: Homosexuality, same sex attraction, is neither inherited, genetic, or passed on by birth. Thas a fact, Jack. No evidence exists.

Thus, same sex attraction is an acquired preference.

So there is your first moral absolute.

Crank that into your moral equasion.

Happy New Year!

amicus veritas

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sorry... the testosterone has addled my brain so much I can't answer the question.... can only think about this sentence...

Hurrah, you got Bel's late Christmas present for you


Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Belegon
I think there are people who consider gender to be almost irrelevant.

Not even "almost." Certainly IS irrelevant (to me). It's the mind that attracts. The visual might turn my head, but only the mind can make my heart follow.

Agreed. I have a tendency toward one physical gender, but a powerful mind or intense personality is a thing apart - not merely overriding gender preference, but rather *being* the real preference.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

I forget to use this quote more often:

"Don't kid us. You aren't straight. You aren't gay. You aren't bi. You are whatever it takes to get off. And whatever it takes to get your partner of the moment off. You aren't bisexual, asexual, heterosexual or homosexual. You are sexual....and sexy... Don't change..." ~The Fool

So, yeah, that's me.

Fool, you love:

Lou

 

[carsonshepherd]

While JoeW cannot intellectually take the leap, I can and so state that: Homosexuality, same sex attraction, is neither inherited, genetic, or passed on by birth. Thas a fact, Jack. No evidence exists.

Thus, same sex attraction is an acquired preference.

So there is your first moral absolute.

Crank that into your moral equasion.

Happy New Year!

amicus veritas [/B]

Moral absolutes are an acquired preference.

If you don't like men, that's your absolute. That fits into your moral equation.

But I don't fit into your moral equation; I don't care to. Perhaps it's not passed on by birth or genetic, but personally, I don't care if you think it is or not.

Happy New Year!

 

[BlackShanglan]

In this quagmire of relativistic morality, secular humanism, you cannot know, you cannot decide. There are no 'given' or 'absolute' moral imperatives by which you can decide if an activity is moral or immoral; good or bad.

Agreed. It is a great challenge, if one chooses to see the world in such a way. I would argue that if one took that stance, only the "greater good" argument could really guide one, and that is a notoriously two-edged sword that can use noble ends to justify some very unpleasant means indeed. Personally I am not troubled in this area, as I am a person of religious faith, but I do agree that without a "revealed" doctrine or some reference to past custom or belief, it is quite difficult to establish moral absolutes.

I have tried before on this forum to speak of moral absolutes and been hung out to dry so I will not do so at this time.

However, for those of you who do seek answers, absolute answers, so that you may 'know' what is right and what is wrong, I would offer that there are answers.

And I, naturally, will argue that there are not and cannot be, unless one does assume a divine providence.

Moral absolutes deal not with what is, but with what should be. The universe as a purely physical (rather than spiritual) place tells us only what is. There is no assumed "must be" in the natural order, only a "can be." We could not, for example, escape gravity for the majority of human existence. This was not because it was morally wrong, but because it was impossible. Inability to fly, then, appeared to be a "natural" law until we were able to overcome the physical circumstances. When we did, there were no terribe moral repercussions.

For an absolute morality or a natural morality to exist, one would have to assume that some things were by their natures right or wrong. For things to be inherently right or wrong for all peoples and all times, they would have to be part of the natural order of things. I see nothing in the natural workings of the universe to support this theory. Otherwise, all conjectures of right and wrong tend to come down to individual human assumptions about what ought to be - and those are only as "universal" as the people who make those assumptions. There are some things that most cultures find very useful - property rights, for example, or the right to life - but there are also innumerable cases where these rights are abrogated or refused. Without a revealed doctrine, there is no absolute morality - only a set of principles that many people have agreed to for utilitarian purposes.

While JoeW cannot intellectually take the leap, I can and so state that: Homosexuality, same sex attraction, is neither inherited, genetic, or passed on by birth. Thas a fact, Jack. No evidence exists.

So you'd say that the two male swans who nest and mate together every year in Hyde Park lake, and the two penguins in the North American zoo - something tells me it's in New York, but I might be wrong - who mate, nest, and indeed raised an orphan chick together, were socialized to be gay? By whom, precisely? How did they acquire this preference, in the absence of any example, philosophical model, or indeed understanding of sexualiy on any sort of intellectual basis?

Thus, same sex attraction is an acquired preference.

So there is your first moral absolute.

This is not a moral absolute, merely a statement of what you believe - I rather think erroneously - to be fact. For it to be a moral statement, you'd have to make some claim as to it being right or wrong, unless you are using the word "moral" in some novel new way that it would be best to explain. Did you have an opinion on the rightness or wrongness of same sex attraction?

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

But I don't fit into your moral equation; I don't care to. Perhaps it's not passed on by birth or genetic, but personally, I don't care if you think it is or not.

Have I ever told you, Carson, how extremely becoming quiet dignity is to you?



Shanglan

 

[carsonshepherd]

Have I ever told you, Carson, how extremely becoming quiet dignity is to you?



Shanglan

No, but that's because I usually prefer loud and obnoxious.

 

[oggbashan]

The question assumes that every individual is born 100% male or 100% female.

Not everyone is. Apart from people that could be physically of either sex, all of us have some part of the other sex's make-up in us. The proportion will vary from a minute amount to a significant desire to be the other sex. Nature and nuture play their parts.

The majority of males and females are content with their roles - well for us and the survival of the human race - but those who are not deserve consideration as well.

Only when you know that you are male or female can you start to answer the question.

Og

 

[BlackShanglan]

The question assumes that every individual is born 100% male or 100% female.

Not everyone is. Apart from people that could be physically of either sex, all of us have some part of the other sex's make-up in us. The proportion will vary from a minute amount to a significant desire to be the other sex. Nature and nuture play their parts.

The majority of males and females are content with their roles - well for us and the survival of the human race - but those who are not deserve consideration as well.

Only when you know that you are male or female can you start to answer the question.

Og

What an excellent point. I was just mulling this over the other day in relation to "chimeras" - a rare condition, but one that raises intriguing questions. What sexual stance can reasonably be expected of someone made up of both male and female elements?

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

No, but that's because I usually prefer loud and obnoxious.

And you do that very charmingly as well. *nuzzle*

Shanglan