Bisexuality [Archive] - Virtual Teen Forums

Reality

May 14th, 2009, 10:40 AM

I don't know whether this should be posted here, or on Teen Sexuality. But anyways, this is gonna (hopefully) be a debate about bisexuality.

Do you believe in true bisexuality? That someone can actually attracted to both sexes at the same time?

For some reason, I actually don't. I have no problems with anyone on the basis of their sexuality, and I don't say anything to those who claim they are bi, but I don't really think there's such thing.

Now, I don't know every bisexual, but every bisexual I've met in real-life actually turned out to be either gay or straight by the end of puberty.

I think some people claim to be bisexual for other reasons. I know for a fact some girls pretend to be bisexual to get guys attention, and vice versa. And some people who are really straight may have sexual experience with someone of the same gender, but that's called curiousity, not exactly bisexual.

I believe the reality is, that some/most bisexual people are really confused, and are either really gay or really straight.

P.S.
This isn't intended to offend anyone that's bisexual here. It's just my beliefs.

Death

May 14th, 2009, 04:10 PM

I don't see why someone can't be bisexual, it's just not something that has been common in my experience. But seriously, some people are attracted to both sexes (altough this shouldn't stop them from sticking ith their partner when they get one) so I think that bisexuality is existant, just uncommon.

nick

May 14th, 2009, 04:25 PM

Not surprisingly I disagree. I tend more towards the view that everyone is bisexual, just not everyone realises or accepts it.

ShatteredWings

May 14th, 2009, 04:25 PM

I think it can happen.

I mean, it is a LOT easier to accept yourself as bi, then come to the conclusion later that you're gay.. or that it's possiable that people confuse cuirocity with sexuality.

But that doesn't change the fact that if you love someone, then you love them. Gender isn't as important as people think

I do think that noone is *totally* straight or *totally* gay.
Really
Can you honestly say that you've never found someone of the gender-you-don't-generally-find-intersting attractive?
Didn't think so

BeautifulSilence

May 14th, 2009, 04:27 PM

Hmm. This is interesting. I would have said the opposite. Everyone is actually bisexual, they just need to find that right person(s) to show them that they can be attracted to both men and women.

True that I know someone who "thought" he was bisexual, and then called it a phase. I also know someone that called themself bisexual because she thought it'd be easier for her friend [don't ask about the logic, I don't exactly like this person enough to bother...]

I definitely believe that someone can be attracted to both sexes.

EDIT: I also LOATHE the word 'curious' when referring to sexuality. And, like Gwyn said, gender shouldn't matter.

Atonement

May 14th, 2009, 04:39 PM

Okay, there is bisexual. There is no hetero or homosexual per se. No one is 100% toward opposite gender, no one is 100% for their own gender. Its just which you prefer MORE. So, when it comes to bisexuality for me, I prefer men, but not to the extent that I reject women. If that makes sense.

Sapphire

May 14th, 2009, 04:53 PM

Do you believe in true bisexuality? That someone can actually attracted to both sexes at the same time?

For some reason, I actually don't. I have no problems with anyone on the basis of their sexuality, and I don't say anything to those who claim they are bi, but I don't really think there's such thing.

Now, I don't know every bisexual, but every bisexual I've met in real-life actually turned out to be either gay or straight by the end of puberty.

I think some people claim to be bisexual for other reasons. I know for a fact some girls pretend to be bisexual to get guys attention, and vice versa. And some people who are really straight may have sexual experience with someone of the same gender, but that's called curiousity, not exactly bisexual.

I believe the reality is, that bisexual people are really confused, and are either really gay or really straight.
I am bisexual and I can tell you with 100% certainty that I am NOT confused. Since I am no longer in puberty you cannot try telling me that it is just the effects of puberty on my hormones.
I am very clear about my sexuality and have been for many years now. I find relationships with men and women equally rewarding and am happy with either. I am neither straight nor lesbian. Gender doesn't matter to me. I fall for whom ever I fall for.

How you can make some really quite insulting statements then go on to say that you don't mean to offend people and think that it makes it all ok is beyond me.

Reality

May 14th, 2009, 07:33 PM

I am bisexual and I can tell you with 100% certainty that I am NOT confused. Since I am no longer in puberty you cannot try telling me that it is just the effects of puberty on my hormones.
I am very clear about my sexuality and have been for many years now. I find relationships with men and women equally rewarding and am happy with either. I am neither straight nor lesbian. Gender doesn't matter to me. I fall for whom ever I fall for.
Fair enough.

How you can make some really quite insulting statements then go on to say that you don't mean to offend people and think that it makes it all ok is beyond me.
I don't mean to be offensive. But I'm just talking from my experience with bisexuals. I don't claim to know them all, though.
Is it wrong to have a view that isn't exactly the most positive?

Sugaree

May 14th, 2009, 07:54 PM

I'm not sure if there really is a person out there who truly is 100% bisexual, because it just isn't possible. You can't claim that you're %100 straight or %100 gay/lesbian. You can always have an attraction to the opposite sex. I'm bisexual, but I'm not attracted to both sexualities equally. To be honest, I'm more %75 girls and %25 towards guys. I once was more attracted to guys, but I'm not. There will always be some type of attraction to the opposite sexuality, and that's why people can't claim to be %100 of their sexuality.

ShatteredWings

May 14th, 2009, 07:54 PM

INFERNO

May 14th, 2009, 09:25 PM

I do believe there is true bisexuality, hetero-and homosexuality. One of the things I tend to call upon is the Kinsey Scale (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html).

That being said, nowadays there is this fashion trend, especially among girls but also among boys, to claim to be bisexual in order to gain attention and whatnot. Sadly, this has pretty much taken a piss on the true meaning of bisexuality as well as true bisexuals being seen as attention-seekers (even if they are not).

However, this one idea stood out at me the most:

Everyone is actually bisexual, they just need to find that right person(s) to show them that they can be attracted to both men and women.

Unless you've spoken to every single person, then you cannot conclude everyone is bisexual with such certainty. Explain how this one certain person can show someone their bisexuality-in-hiding. If you're not attracted to one gender, then what can this one specific person do to suddenly change your view completely?

I'm bisexual, but I'm not attracted to both sexualities equally. To be honest, I'm more %75 girls and %25 towards guys

As I mentioned at the top of my post, check out the Kinsey Scale because according to that, as well as even laymen definitions, you're not bisexual.

I believe the reality is, that bisexual people are really confused, and are either really gay or really straight.

Nice insult, so every single bisexual is confused, gearing them towards a side of being stupid? I also suggest the Kinsey Scale.

Sapphire

May 15th, 2009, 07:51 AM

I don't mean to be offensive. But I'm just talking from my experience with bisexuals. I don't claim to know them all, though.
Is it wrong to have a view that isn't exactly the most positive?
The problem arises when you generalise your negative view to everyone who fits under the same label of the small sample your view is based on.
You don't do it based on colour because it's racist.
So why the hell would it be ok to make these types of generalisations based on sexuality?

I do believe there is true bisexuality, hetero-and homosexuality. One of the things I tend to call upon is the Kinsey Scale (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html).I haven't heard of that one but I know of another way of measuring an individuals sexuality called the Epstein Sexual Orientation Inventory. It works on the basis that sexuality is a continum just like the Kinsey Scale.

Reality

May 15th, 2009, 11:20 AM

Nice insult, so every single bisexual is confused, gearing them towards a side of being stupid? I also suggest the Kinsey Scale.
It wasn't (intended as) an insult. I must've said it wrong. But a lot of people are confused about their sexuality. Particularly ones in puberty. I'm sure you've seen many questions on here titled "Am I gay?" "Am I bi?" "Am I lesbian?" etc.

The problem arises when you generalise your negative view to everyone who fits under the same label of the small sample your view is based on.
I guess not.

You don't do it based on colour because it's racist.
So why the hell would it be ok to make these types of generalisations based on sexuality?
Actually, I would do it based on skin colour if I met very few people of a different race and hardly knew anything about them (although I'd try to be open minded as possible). It doesn't make me racist, it makes me rather uninformed.

By the way, Sapphire, you don't sound like a bisexual to me. You sound more like a pansexual. >_>

Sugaree

May 15th, 2009, 01:14 PM

As I mentioned at the top of my post, check out the Kinsey Scale because according to that, as well as even laymen definitions, you're not bisexual.

Excuse me? Where do you get off telling people if they are or if they are not bisexual? I completely get the Kinsey Scale, but I know what I am, and nobody is going to tell me otherwise.

INFERNO

May 15th, 2009, 01:58 PM

It wasn't (intended as) an insult. I must've said it wrong. But a lot of people are confused about their sexuality. Particularly ones in puberty. I'm sure you've seen many questions on here titled "Am I gay?" "Am I bi?" "Am I lesbian?" etc.

True, many people especially those in puberty are confused about their sexual orientation. However, you didn't say "some bisexuals are confused", you said "bisexual people are really confused", which implies ALL bisexuals, regardless of age or gender. I have seen many threads regarding the OP's sexual orientation, however, that is not good evidence for you to support your claim of ALL bisexuals being confused.

Excuse me? Where do you get off telling people if they are or if they are not bisexual? I completely get the Kinsey Scale

Well, according to the Kinsey Scale, you don't fit the definition of bisexuality. If you understand the Kinsey Scale then you'd understand where I was coming from as I am adhering to what it says.

I know what I am, and nobody is going to tell me otherwise
Where do you get off telling people they cannot tell you something?

Sapphire

May 15th, 2009, 04:49 PM

Well, according to the Kinsey Scale, you don't fit the definition of bisexuality. If you understand the Kinsey Scale then you'd understand where I was coming from as I am adhering to what it says.The Kinsey Scale is not a way of measuring sexuality as it is entirely down to how the individual categorises themselves at the time.
The Epstein Sexual Orientation Inventory actually measures sexual orientation through a series of questions and has a much larger scale (0 being heterosexual - 13 being homosexual). The ESOI is a strong measure of sexuality and gives a much more accurate insight into a persons sexuality.

You are not in a place to tell him his sexuality. Many bisexuals have a preference for one gender over the other but that doesn't stop them being bi and this is also illustrated by the ESOI.

Actually, I would do it based on skin colour if I met very few people of a different race and hardly knew anything about them (although I'd try to be open minded as possible). It doesn't make me racist, it makes me rather uninformed.
It would make you racist as racism is defined as discrimination or prejudice based on race.

By the way, Sapphire, you don't sound like a bisexual to me. You sound more like a pansexual. >_>As I have said before, I am bisexual.

If you don't believe in bisexuality, why do you believe in pansexuality? They are basically the same.

Also, how you feel you are qualified to tell me what my sexuality is without knowing me is quite beyond me.

Reality

May 15th, 2009, 05:06 PM

It would make you racist as racism is defined as discrimination or prejudice based on race.
My definition of racism is to think your own race is superior/better than others, or to hate them. The old fashioned definition. :)

As I have said before, I am bisexual.

If you don't believe in bisexuality, why do you believe in pansexuality? They are basically the same.
No. They're not. Pansexuality is when you're attracted to people, regardless of their gender. You basically love each sex equally, but it doesn't matter their gender.

Bisexuality, on the other hand, is when you love two genders, but its because you're attracted to both genders, and it's not really equal and it is gender based. I.E. "I love girls and boys, but girls more" - That's what I don't believe in, because it doesn't really make that much sense to me. >_>

Also, how you feel you are qualified to tell me what my sexuality is without knowing me is quite beyond me.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said you sounded like you were pansexual, I didn't make it the word of God that you were.

..I find relationships with men and women equally rewarding and am happy with either. I am neither straight nor lesbian. Gender doesn't matter to me. I fall for whom ever I fall for.

Sounds like pansexuality to me.

nick

May 15th, 2009, 05:45 PM

Reality

May 15th, 2009, 06:02 PM

I dont want to be accused of being ignorant again, but no-one has yet defined pansexual to me in a way that doesnt mean exactly the same as bisexual. It just seems semantics to me. To say that one means you love someone irrespective of there gender, where as the other means you love someone of either gender, ( I think thats what you said) its the same thing. The emporer is wearing no clothes!
It's hard to explain. A bisexual is someone who loves both genders, and are attracted to both respective genders.

But pansexual is defined as someone who loves people.. for love. Regardless of their gender. It's like an equal bisexuality, really.

Sapphire

May 15th, 2009, 06:04 PM

My definition of racism is to think your own race is superior/better than others, or to hate them. The old fashioned definition. :)
Racism is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
Source: US Civil Rights Commission

No. They're not. Pansexuality is when you're attracted to people, regardless of their gender. You basically love each sex equally, but it doesn't matter their gender.Not all pansexuals are "gender-blind".
Pansexuality is basically the same as bisexuality. The distinction was made because some people don't like the semantics behind bisexuality.

More info here:
http://bestuff.com/stuff/pansexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality

Bisexuality, on the other hand, is when you love two genders, but its because you're attracted to both genders, and it's not really equal and it is gender based. I.E. "I love girls and boys, but girls more" - That's what I don't believe in, because it doesn't really make that much sense to me. >_>Ok, you really should stop generalising. The sooner you realise that the world is not black and white the better.

Bisexuality isn't gender driven. Hetero- and homosexuality are gender driven as they either like the same sex or the opposite sex. Bisexuality is more flexible as they like both and as such gender is not the primary factor in choosing a prospective partner.
It also doesn't mean that they are equally attracted to men and women.
The Epstein Sexual Orientation Inventory proves this as it is a tried and tested means of testing sexual orientation and it places individuals on a large sexuality continuum. If bisexuals couldn't have a preference for one sex over the other then the ESOI wouldn't be a valid tool.

The sites below also state that an equal attraction to both sexes isn't a requirement and some state that bisexuals are not gender driven.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/b/2009/04/01/bisexuality-101.htm
http://binetbc.bi.org/primer.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/bisexuality.htm

Also, just because quite a few have a preference doesn't mean that every bisexual has a preference. There are some which don't have a preference.

Sounds like pansexuality to me.
What you think I sound like and what I actually am are clearly two very different things.

What I still don't get is how you can believe in pansexuality but not bisexuality when they are rather overlapping terms.

Reality

May 15th, 2009, 06:33 PM

Racism is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
Source: US Civil Rights Commission
I don't care what the modern/"flexible" definition of racism is. I'm using the traditional definition of 'racism':
rac⋅ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

Not all pansexuals are "gender-blind".
Pansexuality is basically the same as bisexuality. The distinction was made because some people don't like the semantics behind bisexuality.

More info here:
http://bestuff.com/stuff/pansexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality
The pansexuals that aren't gender-blind are bisexual, then.

Ok, you really should stop generalising. The sooner you realise that the world is not black and white the better.
I know it's not. Don't make me out to be some ignoramus.

Bisexuality isn't gender driven. Hetero- and homosexuality are gender driven as they either like the same sex or the opposite sex. Bisexuality is more flexible as they like both and as such gender is not the primary factor in choosing a prospective partner.
It also doesn't mean that they are equally attracted to men and women.
The Epstein Sexual Orientation Inventory proves this as it is a tried and tested means of testing sexual orientation and it places individuals on a large sexuality continuum. If bisexuals couldn't have a preference for one sex over the other then the ESOI wouldn't be a valid tool.
To me, bisexuality is gender driven. But by both genders. Yes, it is flexible that way.

Also, just because quite a few have a preference doesn't mean that every bisexual has a preference. There are some which don't have a preference.
Hence; pansexuality.

What you think I sound like and what I actually am are clearly two very different things.

What I still don't get is how you can believe in pansexuality but not bisexuality when they are rather overlapping terms.
Because I don't believe you can really be attracted to both genders. I kinda believe in pansexuality, because they're more gender blind.

But I can't see how you can biologically be attracted to both sexes, seeing as they're both very different, opposite in some ways, actually.

And I'm sorry I interpreted you "wrongly". You don't need to be down my neck about it. I'm trying to keep this a debate.

Sapphire

May 15th, 2009, 06:49 PM

You want to debate and yet I don't see any real logic behind your statements. I see ignorance and stubbornness. But alas, no real logic.

You have dismissed valid points that I have made and provided evidence for with comments such as "Well then they aren't really bisexual/pansexual."

If you want to debate, back your view up with something solid.

Reality

May 15th, 2009, 07:02 PM

You want to debate and yet I don't see any real logic behind your statements. I see ignorance and stubbornness. But alas, no real logic.
I'm using my opinion. You're being stubborn as well, and you took me too personally. >_>

You have dismissed valid points that I have made and provided evidence for with comments such as "Well then they aren't really bisexual/pansexual."
I already went through it.

If you want to debate, back your view up with something solid.
I already have (in my opinion).

Sapphire

May 15th, 2009, 07:21 PM

Ok, how have you backed your opinion up apart from using your own opinion? What is there to support your view?

I have given my opinion and provided a number of sources which support my statements.
All you have given is the rambling of a 16 year old.

Reality

May 15th, 2009, 07:28 PM

Ok, how have you backed your opinion up apart from using your own opinion? What is there to support your view?
Definitions and my opinion. You can use them in debates. I don't need sources because this isn't what my goddamn debate is about.

It's simply opinion based, whether you believe in true bisexuality or not.
I know this because........ it's my thread.

I have given my opinion and provided a number of sources which support my statements.
All you have given is the rambling of a 16 year old.
I am 16. Your point?

Also the ramblings? Heh. Well this forum section is called the "Ramblings of the Wise". :rolleyes:

Sapphire

May 15th, 2009, 07:35 PM

Then you are further illustrating your ignorance by ignoring the evidence presented to you in favour of your own inaccurate views.

Reality

May 15th, 2009, 07:38 PM

Then you are further illustrating your ignorance by ignoring the evidence presented to you in favour of your own inaccurate views.
Will you stop making this personal and attacking me? Are you trying to get this Mod-Locked or something?

I didn't ignore any evidence. If you check, I replied to your points already, but you didn't reply, you just sat there and went on about how I'm being ignorant and stubborn.

Sapphire

May 15th, 2009, 08:00 PM

Will you stop making this personal and attacking me? Are you trying to get this Mod-Locked or something?

I didn't ignore any evidence. If you check, I replied to your points already, but you didn't reply, you just sat there and went on about how I'm being ignorant and stubborn.
You haven't properly addressed them at all. All you said was "well they aren't really bi/pansexual."
I have given a number of sources which outline what bisexuality and pansexuality are. One even looked at how the two are similar and how they are different. But you ignored that.
To respond with "Well, to me bi/pansexuality is..." is inadequate as it isn't the real definition. It is your made up definition to fit your inaccurate view.

Reality

May 15th, 2009, 08:02 PM

You haven't properly addressed them at all. All you said was "well they aren't really bi/pansexual."
I have given a number of sources which outline what bisexuality and pansexuality are. One even looked at how the two are similar and how they are different. But you ignored that.
To respond with "Well, to me bi/pansexuality is..." is inadequate as it isn't the real definition. It is your made up definition to fit your inaccurate view.
It's how I perceive it, I'm actually using the original/simple definitions of bisexual and pansexual.

This isn't about being right or wrong for the last freakin' time. My debate was supposed to be about opinions. Not to attack me because of my so-called "Inaccurate" views.

Sapphire

May 15th, 2009, 08:18 PM

It's how I perceive it, I'm actually using the original/simple definitions of bisexual and pansexual.

This isn't about being right or wrong for the last freakin' time. My debate was supposed to be about opinions. Not to attack me because of my so-called "Inaccurate" views.
There's only one definition of bisexuality and one for pansexuality so God only knows where you got yours from.

So-called inaccurate views? Fucking hell, does anything get through your skull?!
Read the sources I gave you. Google bisexuality. Google pansexuality. None of them will echo what you have said in this thread.
If your views were accurate then they would be mirrored in the results those searches would give.

So let me get this straight. It's ok for you to insult and offend bisexuals because the purpose of this thread is to debate the existence of bisexuality. But for me to point out your ignorance and stubbornness is out of line because it isn't the purpose of the thread and you are just expressing your opinion?
What a fucking hypocritical mess!

Reality

May 15th, 2009, 08:22 PM

<_<

Take a chill pill. Maybe this thread wasn't such a good idea, seeing as you can't refrain from dropping the F-Bomb at me, and throwing other insults at me, which wasn't the fucking point of this.

Shame, too, because we usually agree on stuff. Oh well.

Camazotz

May 15th, 2009, 08:58 PM

To be honest, I don't see why everyone is attacking Semp. He is stating his opinions after looking at personal experiences, and there is nothing wrong with that. His opinion my differ from yours, but it doesn't mean it's "inaccurate" or "ignorant" or "stubborn". Just different.

That being said, I really have no thoughts on this. I know you cannot choose your sexuality, therefore it is possible to be bisexual or pansexual. However, I do not believe everyone is bisexual either. Like I said, no one can choose their sexuality, so once in a while you will get a "pure" heterosexual or a "pure" homosexual. Also, I do not believe arguing about the "true" definitions of bisexuality and pansexuality is going to solve anything. Pansexuality and bisexuality are both very similar, bot not the same.

The whole thought of sexuality may get confusing and seem very broad, but bashing other people and saying that they're wrong is wrong. People will have their beliefs from personal experiences, so there is no reason to call them "inaccurate." All I can ask is for everyone to stop attacking each other. A civil debate is the best debate.

inlove

May 16th, 2009, 01:04 AM

Reality

May 16th, 2009, 02:04 AM

I'm not at all attracted to the same sex.

So much for 'everyone'

Sapphire

May 16th, 2009, 05:31 AM

Take a chill pill. Maybe this thread wasn't such a good idea, seeing as you can't refrain from dropping the F-Bomb at me, and throwing other insults at me, which wasn't the fucking point of this.

Shame, too, because we usually agree on stuff. Oh well.
I love how you haven't denied that you are being hypocritical...

The point of this thread is to debate the existence of bisexuality. In doing so you have insulted and offended me. I point out how you are being stubborn and ignoring evidence that goes against your view but that is out of line because it isn't the purpose of the thread.
What a mess of hypocrisy and double standards.

I would have been more open to debating if you hadn't insulted and offended me in your first and second posts.

INFERNO

May 16th, 2009, 07:48 AM

I don't care what the modern/"flexible" definition of racism is. I'm using the traditional definition of 'racism'

You and Sapphire are usually essentially the same definitions: one race or group with a certain skin colour acts superior to another.

The pansexuals that aren't gender-blind are bisexual, then.

Interesting, define bisexuality. According to the Kinsey Scale and other definitions, it's equal attraction to both genders. So, I'm interested in seeing why you feel that if one is not pansexual then they are automatically bisexual.

To me, bisexuality is gender driven. But by both genders. Yes, it is flexible that way.

I'd have to say that I agree with this. Bisexuality not being gender-driven seems to be a contradiction because it is based solely on the amount of attraction towards both genders. But, if you take away it needing to be dependent on genders, then it makes no sense.

Because I don't believe you can really be attracted to both genders. I kinda believe in pansexuality, because they're more gender blind.

So your logic is that you believe in someone being attracted to people's personalities regardless of gender, however, once you toss gender into the mix, then suddenly you disbelieve it. I don't follow.

But I can't see how you can biologically be attracted to both sexes, seeing as they're both very different, opposite in some ways, actually.

The biological reasons aren't fully known yet, however, here is a small list of some of them, as well as a nice summary of LeVay's famous 1991 paper: CLICKIE HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation)

Definitions and my opinion. You can use them in debates. I don't need sources because this isn't what my goddamn debate is about.

You need sources to back up your claims and arguments. Stating your opinion is perfectly fine, in fact, it's encouraged. However, you need some rationale to them, ideally something that backs them up in some way to support your argument. Without the sources, you get laughed out of the debate.

It's simply opinion based, whether you believe in true bisexuality or not.
I know this because........ it's my thread.

Yes it is opinion-based and yes it is your thread. However, it's in the debate area. Thus, you need some amount of evidence with sources to back up your claims and opinions. It's like this: someone asks for your opinion on something, you give it. They then question it and your only argument is your opinion. Smells like bare assertion fallacy, circular reasoning, etc... . Give sources and hopefully this is no longer the case.

I am 16. Your point?

I see no reason to begin debating regarding one's age.

Also the ramblings? Heh. Well this forum section is called the "Ramblings of the Wise". :rolleyes:

:lol::lol: , that it is.

true.. everyone is atracted to the oppisite and same sex in one way or the other...

Care to back that up with something showing the everyone (not just some people, you said everyone, so get evidence showing that) is indeed attracted to both sexes?

Sapphire

May 16th, 2009, 08:14 AM

Interesting, define bisexuality. According to the Kinsey Scale and other definitions, it's equal attraction to both genders.What definitions are these?
The Kinsey Scale doesn't say that to be bisexual you must be equally attracted to both genders and it relies completely on past sexual acts. It doesn't take into account desires which have yet to be acted on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A570098

The biological reasons aren't fully known yet, however, here is a small list of some of them, as well as a nice summary of LeVay's famous 1991 paper: CLICKIE HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation)That doesn't give a list of causes. It lists differences that have been observed. But nowhere does it give any evidence for one thing causing another.

INFERNO

May 16th, 2009, 08:19 AM

What definitions are these?

Some adhere to the definition being attraction to both sexes regardless if it's 50/50 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bisexuality) whereas other adhere to it being attraction exactly 50/50 (Kinsey Scale).

That doesn't give a list of causes. It lists differences that have been observed. But nowhere does it give any evidence for one thing causing another.

My mistake, should've put differences.

Sapphire

May 16th, 2009, 08:26 AM

Some adhere to the definition being attraction to both sexes regardless if it's 50/50 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bisexuality) whereas other adhere to it being attraction exactly 50/50 (Kinsey Scale).
Which definitions are these?
None of the ones I have encountered state that the attraction has to be 50/50.

EDIT
For the umpteenth time, the Kinsey Scale relies on past behaviours and doesn't take into account sexual attraction so it isn't valid for defining bisexuality.

alphabeta

May 16th, 2009, 10:38 AM

Not surprisingly I disagree. I tend more towards the view that everyone is bisexual, just not everyone realises or accepts it.

I totally agree with this 100%

Whisper

May 16th, 2009, 03:29 PM

I love the soul
I play with the body

looks are important duh
but beauty is in the eye of the beholder

INFERNO

May 16th, 2009, 04:11 PM

Which definitions are these?
None of the ones I have encountered state that the attraction has to be 50/50.

EDIT
For the umpteenth time, the Kinsey Scale relies on past behaviours and doesn't take into account sexual attraction so it isn't valid for defining bisexuality.

What do you mean "which definitions are these"? Look at the link I gave and you'll find those definitions. I don't know what you seem so puzzled about, I gave you the link, I don't know how else I can give the definition to you. As for the Kinsey Scale, yes it does rely on past behaviors and yes it does consider sexual attraction. It's a self-evaluation method so how in the blue hell can it not take into account sexual attraction? Thus, your claim that it isn't valid based on the fact that according to you, it doesn't consider sexual attraction is null, bogus, nonsense, etc... and thus, it is dismissed.

Therefore, looking at the definition of bisexuality that the Kinsey Scale provides, it gives the definition of 50/50.

Sapphire

May 16th, 2009, 05:06 PM

What do you mean "which definitions are these"? Look at the link I gave and you'll find those definitions. I don't know what you seem so puzzled about, I gave you the link, I don't know how else I can give the definition to you. As for the Kinsey Scale, yes it does rely on past behaviors and yes it does consider sexual attraction. It's a self-evaluation method so how in the blue hell can it not take into account sexual attraction? Thus, your claim that it isn't valid based on the fact that according to you, it doesn't consider sexual attraction is null, bogus, nonsense, etc... and thus, it is dismissed.

Therefore, looking at the definition of bisexuality that the Kinsey Scale provides, it gives the definition of 50/50.
I'll put it more explicitly, shall I?
Which places/organisations define bisexuality as having a 50/50 attraction to both genders and nothing less?
The definitions in the link you gave doesn't say anything about an equal attraction being essential to bisexuality so I am curious as to what definitions you are referring to.

The Kinsey Scale doesn't effectively measure a persons sexuality as it relies on self-categorisation. It is all very well and good someone putting themselves on a scale of 0 - 6. But when compared to a method of actually measuring their sexuality it is found wanting.
Also, I have yet to see the Kinsey Scale specifically define bisexuality in any form, let alone stating that a bisexual has to have an equal attraction to both sexes.
http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html

The ESOI is a tried and tested means of measuring sexuality without the individual putting themselves in a category and without someone else dictating what their sexual orientation is. Epstein has shown that the categorical way we all look at sexuality is misleading and that sexuality isn't fixed. It is fluid and changes over time. http://drrobertepstein.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=48

INFERNO

May 16th, 2009, 05:45 PM

I'll put it more explicitly, shall I?
Which places/organisations define bisexuality as having a 50/50 attraction to both genders and nothing less?
The definitions in the link you gave doesn't say anything about an equal attraction being essential to bisexuality so I am curious as to what definitions you are referring to.

The Kinsey Scale doesn't effectively measure a persons sexuality as it relies on self-categorisation. It is all very well and good someone putting themselves on a scale of 0 - 6. But when compared to a method of actually measuring their sexuality it is found wanting.
Also, I have yet to see the Kinsey Scale specifically define bisexuality in any form, let alone stating that a bisexual has to have an equal attraction to both sexes.
http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html

The ESOI is a tried and tested means of measuring sexuality without the individual putting themselves in a category and without someone else dictating what their sexual orientation is. Epstein has shown that the categorical way we all look at sexuality is misleading and that sexuality isn't fixed. It is fluid and changes over time. http://drrobertepstein.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=48

I'm not concerning about the Kinsey Scale's effectiveness nor the ESOI's effectiveness at measuring one's sexual orientation. The Kinsey Scale may not be the best, however, I'm going for the definition it uses. It's a widely supported scale, perhaps not the best there is, however, it's not the lowest, most laughed at. So, its validity and reliability is adequate enough.

Allow me to quote myself:

Some adhere to the definition being attraction to both sexes regardless if it's 50/50 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bisexuality) whereas other adhere to it being attraction exactly 50/50 (Kinsey Scale).

I've made that as clear as possible before. The dictionary.com definition is NOT the 50/50 one, that's from the Kinsey Scale. I've said that before very clearly and I'm saying it again. I have no clue why you find this so confusing.