# Bisexuals



## BlueCherokee (Jul 12, 2011)

Okay, I hate to be the one to say this (and I'm sure it's been said before), but can't we just cut out all forms of confusion and just acknowledge that *bisexual* is a term for being romantically/sexually interested/attracted in both/all/either sex!!?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Is someone not using it in that way?


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Is someone not using it in that way?


Some people believe that all bisexuals are secretly homosexuals, and that they're too embarrassed to come out, or don't want to "lose" their heterosexual "privileges". Others will think they're all just sex-crazed people or confused. Though, by definition, a bisexual is someone who is attracted sexually and/or romantically to people of both sexes, not always equally, as some will prefer one to the other, and I'd say this is the case most times. 

But I never saw the point in identifying as such, since like a lot of others, I believe everyone has the ability to be attracted to another human, regardless of gender or orientation. Similar to Freud's theory of innate bisexuality, but a bit more encompassing. You commonly see "bisexuals" choose to identify as straight, homosexual, or pansexual after a while, and vice versa, so this proves that people's sexuality is not static, and more of a choice, although biology probably does effect our choices to some extent. 

Perhaps @_March Cat_ , @Khar , or @PrinceinExile could explain it better.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Some people believe that all bisexuals are secretly homosexuals, and that they're too embarrassed to come out, or don't want to "lose" their heterosexual "privileges". Others will think they're all just sex-crazed people or confused. Though, by definition, a bisexual is someone who is attracted sexually and/or romantically to people of both sexes, not always equally, as some will prefer one to the other, and I'd say this is the case most times.


I didn't know you were talking about the stereotypes, sorry, I thought someone was going around with some strange definition.


----------



## BlueCherokee (Jul 12, 2011)

> people's sexuality is not static, and more of a choice


I deeply disagree with that. As a bisexual, I know for a fact that it's not a choice - I've always been "bi" I just didn't acknowledge those feelings till later. I think people are just trying to figure our their own feelings and experiment with different labels. . there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't make it a choice either - like you said everybody has the capacity to be attracted romantically to both sexes


----------



## BlueCherokee (Jul 12, 2011)

> Is someone not using it in that way?


 bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, polysexual and probably a bunch of others. .  it just confuses me. 

Can't we just have a big scale where people either claim to be "straight" "gay" or "bi" (preferring either or both) OR acknowledging the grey area. I can understand, also, being "asexual" because that usually means you don't have any sexual desire or attraction, but that's about all there is, as far as I can see =/


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

BlueCherokee said:


> bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, polysexual and probably a bunch of others. .  it just confuses me.
> 
> Can't we just have a big scale where people either claim to be "straight" "gay" or "bi" (preferring either or both) OR acknowledging the grey area. I can understand, also, being "asexual" because that usually means you don't have any sexual desire or attraction, but that's about all there is, as far as I can see =/


Yeah you forgot Demisexual 

they do have one lol -http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

If being gay were a choice I'd be a lesbian... :/


----------



## tuna (Jun 10, 2010)

hziegel said:


> If being gay were a choice I'd be a lesbian... :/


being a lesbian is awesome tbh

come to the awesome side hzeigel you know you want to


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

BlueCherokee said:


> I deeply disagree with that. As a bisexual, I know for a fact that it's not a choice - I've always been "bi" I just didn't acknowledge those feelings till later. I think people are just trying to figure our their own feelings and experiment with different labels. . there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't make it a choice either - like you said everybody has the capacity to be attracted romantically to both sexes


I guess I should have said that people choose which label to identify with, but it really doesn't change much, besides how others see you since that's the image you're projecting. In the end, a label is just that. There are plenty of people who might qualify as bi, but they either don't acknowledge those feelings or are unaware of them, maybe even going their entire lives this way. So yes, it is a choice to call yourself straight/bi/****/etc. For the sake of simplicity, I just tell most people I'm straight, since my preference has always been females. People get all kinds of stupid thoughts in their heads when you tell them otherwise.


----------



## PrinceinExile (Dec 29, 2010)

BlueCherokee said:


> I deeply disagree with that. As a bisexual, I know for a fact that it's not a choice - I've always been "bi" I just didn't acknowledge those feelings till later. I think people are just trying to figure our their own feelings and experiment with different labels. . there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't make it a choice either - like you said everybody has the capacity to be attracted romantically to both sexes


In some people it can be a choice (at first) in most others it's not though. I'm a choicer myself, I had no real sexual inclinations myself so I decided one day I'd try to enjoy the same sex and I did ... a lot of much so I found myself closer to gay on the Kinsey scale then Bi, even though I still love titties and a fine body. So in a sense it's both, I decided to experiment but I think the fact that I enjoyed it once I experimented was natural for me. 

=Personal story part of my life I hate myself for=

There was never a massive pull in me towards guys, in fact when I was younger (mostly due to my parents religious influence, but I was at fault for believing it so ferociously) I was extremely ****/bi/trans/alt.sex/phobic, but after a few verbal battles (lost ones) I started to feel bad about my beliefs* and with this bad feeling came a want for me to walk a mile in their shoes, and I did.... and that mile, became 2 miles, then 3 miles, then 5 miles then 10 miles. Going from straight- bi-curious, to bi-sexual, to pan-sexual to pan-sexual androgynous preference. I went from religious ranter to open Atheist GLBT rights activist.**

* It wasn't closet armor for me either, I just had a change of heart one day I forget what happened but I felt I need to atone in a way, and through this I did research and one thing lead to another and in the span of three months I went from homophobic to to bi-curious. 

** for obvious reasons I cannot be open with my parents but everyone else knows I'm pansexual. Though it's not something I go around telling people either , my sexuality is my business, but if it comes up it comes up. 

===Personal story over======



Though I generally agreed that human sexuality, hell human relationships are far too complex for the labels we use. Even the Kinsey scale is too simple. Humans relationships are like theoretical physics yet people treat it like basic mathematics.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

BlueCherokee said:


> bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, polysexual and probably a bunch of others. .  it just confuses me.
> 
> Can't we just have a big scale where people either claim to be "straight" "gay" or "bi" (preferring either or both) OR acknowledging the grey area. I can understand, also, being "asexual" because that usually means you don't have any sexual desire or attraction, but that's about all there is, as far as I can see =/


Bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, and polysexual all have distinct meanings. The only two that are generally interchangeable are pansexual and omnisexual but even those have different connotations.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

BlueCherokee said:


> I deeply disagree with that. As a bisexual, I know for a fact that it's not a choice - I've always been "bi" I just didn't acknowledge those feelings till later. I think people are just trying to figure our their own feelings and experiment with different labels. . there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't make it a choice either - like you said everybody has the capacity to be attracted romantically to both sexes


Bisexuals find people attractive in a gendered way as a straight or gay person would, they are just attracted to both, and pansexuals see sex and gender as irrelevant in who they are attracted to. People sometimes say the difference is that pansexuals are attracted to transexuals or gender variant people, and that is indeed part of it, but that's only part of it.

Personally I am bisexual. I am generally not attracted to androgyny and find men attractive as men and women attractive as women in a more traditional way (the only exception is I'm not a big fan of body hair in men). Not because I am closed minded, it's just the way I feel.


----------



## BlueCherokee (Jul 12, 2011)

> I just tell most people I'm straight, since my preference has always been females. People get all kinds of stupid thoughts in their heads when you tell them otherwise.


That certainly is true =/ maybe that's one reason why people try to avoid certain labels. . hmm.


----------



## BlueCherokee (Jul 12, 2011)

> There was never a massive pull in me towards guys


This leads me to believe that it wasn't a choice after all. At first, everything is experimental, but if you find that you are comfortable with it - wasn't it simply there all along? You can't choose what you will feel. . . =/ 



> pansexuals see sex and gender as irrelevant in who they are attracted to


I must be pansexual then  LOL isn't that ironic??


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

I have a theory that we are all repressed bisexuals. As such, a straight person can become bi, and a gay person can become bi. It just takes repeated, graduated exposures at a pace one is comfortable with.

That theory aside, I definitely believe sexuality exists on a continuum, and so nobody is either completely gay or straight.


----------



## themartyparade (Nov 7, 2010)

tuna said:


> being a lesbian is awesome tbh
> 
> come to the awesome side hzeigel you know you want to


Sounds like a lot more work to be a lesbian.


----------



## tuna (Jun 10, 2010)

themartyparade said:


> Sounds like a lot more work to be a lesbian.


What do you mean?


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

I actually genuinely dislike the "labels" when it comes to sexuality. What people find erotic is no more a choice than your desire to wash when you feel dirty. I like to think of sexuality like white light; it's made up of a spectrum of colours. So if people find their own sex more erotic, or find both sexes equally erotic is just part of them. 

I think the choice element in sexuality is present in whether you choose to act on your urges. When nothing else in life is black and white, I honestly don't see why so many people in the world insist on clinging to the belief that your sexuality can be cast in stone.


----------



## BlueCherokee (Jul 12, 2011)

> I think the choice element in sexuality is present in whether you choose to act on your urges. When nothing else in life is black and white, I honestly don't see why so many people in the world insist on clinging to the belief that your sexuality can be cast in stone.


Nicely said


----------



## atoaster (Jul 23, 2011)

BlueCherokee said:


> I think it's 100% natural for everyone to have sexual and emotional interest in both genders. At the very least to be moderately attracted to one of the other. .


Agreed. why can't we just be *sexual*. There is so much fluidity in every other aspect of humanity, I fail to see why this one isn't as easily accepted.


----------



## Dylio (Jul 4, 2011)

I think the world could benefit from more homosexual tendencies in society as a means of slowing down our population growth. lol


----------



## CountD (Jul 24, 2011)

"You people and your quaint little categories."


----------



## NekoNinja (Apr 18, 2010)

BlueCherokee said:


> Is psychological considered biological???


Biology is the study of organisms. Psychology is the study of the mind. The mind is part of the organism. Psychology is a part of biology.


----------



## CountD (Jul 24, 2011)

NekoNinja said:


> Biology is the study of organisms. Psychology is the study of the mind. The mind is part of the organism. Psychology is a part of biology.


Technically, psychology is not a branch of biology. Neurology, the study of nervous tissues which conducts the impulses which translate to thought and emotion, is a branch of biology. Psychology research does frequently collaborate with neurology, but they are separate areas. Psychology is primarily the study or observation of human behavior. Neurology seeks to understand the biological processes that translate into human behavior, as well as physiology.

Psychology is, however, a soft-science, like all other social sciences, because you cannot typically quantify the type of data that it produces. It is almost always qualitative, and if it can produce quantitative...the conclusions are always speculative or extrapolations of the data. Basically, in a nutshell: psychology is too many subjective variables to be classified as an objective science, such a biology.


----------



## NekoNinja (Apr 18, 2010)

CountD said:


> Technically, psychology is not a branch of biology. Neurology, the study of nervous tissues which conducts the impulses which translate to thought and emotion, is a branch of biology. Psychology research does frequently collaborate with neurology, but they are separate areas. Psychology is primarily the study or observation of human behavior. Neurology seeks to understand the biological processes that translate into human behavior, as well as physiology.
> 
> Psychology is, however, a soft-science, like all other social sciences, because you cannot typically quantify the type of data that it produces. It is almost always qualitative, and if it can produce quantitative...the conclusions are always speculative or extrapolations of the data. Basically, in a nutshell: psychology is too many subjective variables to be classified as an objective science, such a biology.


Well, I wasn't really trying to get all technical. I had a feeling someone would post this though.... Its easier to just say that psychology is part of biology, but its certainly more complicating than that. Another thing that you have to consider is that most things in psychology aren't really considered "factual" unless you can find a biological component to prove it. Otherwise its more along the lines of theory and speculation. 

Did you know that there is a class called human behavioral biology?


----------



## CountD (Jul 24, 2011)

NekoNinja said:


> Well, I wasn't really trying to get all technical. I had a feeling someone would post this though.... Its easier to just say that psychology is part of biology, but its certainly more complicating than that. Another thing that you have to consider is that most things in psychology aren't really considered "factual" unless you can find a biological component to prove it. Otherwise its more along the lines of theory and speculation.
> 
> Did you know that there is a class called human behavioral biology?


I apologize for getting technical. I'm just a little nit-picky about details like that. I agree with your comment. I am familiar with behavioral biology, it is usually paired with neuroscience.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I only bothered to read the "Twin Studies" section. Taking that information at face value, it's clear that sexuality isn't only genetic. Biological changes that are caused by the environment are a different story. 

I think most people intuitively see sexuality as a more cognitive/flexible process than one fitting in 3 labels and being solidified at birth or in childhood.


----------



## CountD (Jul 24, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I only bothered to read the "Twin Studies" section. Taking that information at face value, it's clear that sexuality isn't only genetic. Biological changes that are caused by the environment are a different story.
> 
> I think most people intuitively see sexuality as a more cognitive/flexible process than one fitting in 3 labels and being solidified at birth or in childhood.


I work in an epigenetics-focused ObGyn Lab, and it is amazing me how much we are discovering epigenetics to be responsible for so many attributes and tendencies that had so long been thought to be 'genetic.' It's an incredibly interesting field, and I may do my graduate research in it.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

It is fascinating, and understandably terrifying for micro-managing parents...or grandparents depending on what epigenetic effect we're talking about.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

I'm a bit skeptical on those studies that link brain structure with sexual preferences, as I've gotten results on several tests that have pegged me as having a brain looking more like your traditional female one, yet, I have full blown homosexual friends who have taken the same tests and have found themselves having something closer to a traditional male brain. And of course, there's personal validation and conviction, so I'm not just taking these results at face value. 

Hormones and sexual orientation originate in different parts of the brain, I've heard, so while there might be some correlation, I don't think it's one of those all-or-nothing situations.


----------



## antiant (Jul 4, 2010)

Dylio said:


> I think the world could benefit from more homosexual tendencies in society as a means of slowing down our population growth. lol


*scratches head* *blinks* *wtf?!*

1. Surrogacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Artificial insemination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People really need to think before they speak.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Dylio could easily say those are two prohibitively expensive/complicated options that are still subject to restrictive state laws.


----------



## CountD (Jul 24, 2011)

antiant said:


> *scratches head* *blinks* *wtf?!*
> 
> 1. Surrogacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 2. Artificial insemination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



3. Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## antiant (Jul 4, 2010)

ManhattanINTP said:


> Dylio could easily say those are two prohibitively expensive/complicated options that are still subject to restrictive state laws.


He could, but that wasn't my point.



CountD said:


> 3. Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I think you missed a point somewhere along the line.


----------



## CountD (Jul 24, 2011)

antiant said:


> He could, but that wasn't my point.
> 
> 
> I think you missed a point somewhere along the line.


No, I didn't. Africa continues to populate exponentially. Now given, they are dying almost as fast as they are reproducing due to HIV, Malaria, and TB, but they are still reproducing incredibly fast. The degree at which these people are reproducing is far outweighing any change in our population increase due to homosexuality (which, for all sakes and purposes, is negligible).


----------



## antiant (Jul 4, 2010)

CountD said:


> No, I didn't. Africa continues to populate exponentially. Now given, they are dying almost as fast as they are reproducing due to HIV, Malaria, and TB, but they are still reproducing incredibly fast. The degree at which these people are reproducing is far outweighing any change in our population increase due to homosexuality (which, for all sakes and purposes, is negligible).


Yeah, you missed the point, you went on a whole other tangent. No where did I mention Africa, it's apples and oranges and a whole other discussion. I was speaking about a very specific point and addressing Dylio's assumption.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

antiant said:


> He could, but that wasn't my point.


_My_ point was that if he could easily rebuttal what you said, perhaps he doesn't need to be advised to "think before" he speaks. Though even if he couldn't rebuttal, the advice could be easily seen as not productive.


----------



## antiant (Jul 4, 2010)

ManhattanINTP said:


> _My_ point was that if he could easily rebuttal what you said, perhaps he doesn't need to be advised to "think before" he speaks. Though even if he couldn't rebuttal, the advice could be easily seen as not productive.


Perhaps he should speak for himself, as my response was directed toward him.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

He doesn't need to speak for himself; I've been trying to politely say _I_ found the advice disrespectful and unnecessary. That's all.


----------

