What Exactly Is Bi-Sexuality !!!

After just watching a South African Journalist "Baslildon Peta" What a name ! talking about the no suprise results in Zimbabwe committing the folk there to yet more hardship and suffering, not too mention now, that Mugabe has even more party seats for the first time (over 2 thirds) I was wondering what Election strategy the Sun /amongst others) might adopt in the near future "Our Tone sends in SAS lads to kick Bob's butt" or so suchlike, what with the Royal Wedding, and spring silliness, just about anything is possible on tthe second day of Britain's new financial year, innit ?


Fritz Von Mark Thatcher for President

[QUOTE]P.S. Sorry if bringing up this subject offends anybody, QUOTE]

No offenses................but so sadly nostalgic........


Did you know that for the first 3 gestation's months all we were female.
After 3 months nature decides between male or female, John or Mary, Saddam and Condoleezza.
In our case we have Adam.
But it could be Eve.

Interesting point too Luigi old wine drinker you.


Fritz Von James Brown, Chuck Berry & Michael Jackson are all Icons of music I feel

Mainstream human foetal development is female. It’s been a long time since my studies so don’t quote me, but I think the male switch kicks in after week 8 – if the foetus in question is XY. It’s thought (but not proven) that this might partly explain why sexual identity crises are not all that uncommon. Who knows? It's like FE/RE really. The two poles are very distinct but there are lots of permutations in the bell curve.

Who cares?

One of my buddies told me a couple of months ago that before he was married, he had a 3 year gay relationship. He actually isn't bi-sexual, but just changed his mind. I can understand bi-sexuality easily enough, but I don't see how you can change your sexuality. He couldn't give me an answer. Strange but true. I have two previously male friends who are now women too, but that's Brighton I guess. Funny how they just don't seem any different to me - except people stare of course. They do look like blokes in drag unfortunately, although I would never tell them that!

I think it was Kinsey who proposed that sexuality existed on a continum (from 1 to 6) with 1 being absolute heterosexuality and 6 absolute homosexuality.

So I guess anything in between is "Bisexual"

More recent thinking has however questioned the value of much of Kinsey's work although this sexual continum seems quite plausible to me

D

I wonder how much of it is physical and how much is psychological?

What you do with your sexuality all comes down to the basic drive to procreate. Though it takes a mixed pair to manage this clever act successfully regardless of their psychological preferences.

So in theory a gay man and a gay woman can produce children even if they don't fancy each other. But the arguments about who wears the trousers in their house would go on forever.

Nime

Nime

quote:

What you do with your sexuality all comes down to the basic drive to procreate.

Really?

I'd suggest that is a rather narrow view

quote:

in theory a gay man and a gay woman can produce children

No 'theory' about it mate - it's been proven (many times)

D

Don't be quite so literal.
(I'm prone to irrational acts of heavily-disguised humour)

While I'm sure clandestine visits to the bathroom with a (borrowed) copy of the Sun might not immediately bring babies to mind the underlying purpose must have some original association with procreation.

And don't call me mate, Matey!

Nime

Nime

quote:

I'm prone to irrational acts of heavily-disguised humour

No problem. It's easy to miss these subtleties of meaning when you are unfamiliar with a persons style. Although, I do feel that I understand you better when you mention your penchant for

quote:

clandestine visits to the bathroom with a (borrowed) copy of the Sun

D

If you think I'm going to rise to that then you are sorely mistaken.

Nime

Okay, but aren't ALL visits to the bathroom to some extent clandestine? (Mayfair for me anyway! )

So far as homosexuality/bisexuality goes, I just don't get it. I always smirk when some moron on TV tells me how it's perfectly natural!

NATURAL????!!!!! I'm a qualified scientist and a practising engineer, but I'm afraid you're going to have to explain that one to me nice and slowly. I'm not trying to offend anyone by saying this, but it's hardly bloody "natural" in the strictest sense of the word.

Ah well. Enough semantics.

EW

You english people have a nice way to say.
You call the place where people live in two different ways: HOME and HOUSE.
In my life i saw a lot heterosexual "houses" and a lot of omosexual "homes".
I think is not only a mechanical problem.
There's much of love in it to consider.

Obviously you could be deliberately stirring it, EW, but you may find the following of interest:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1432972,00.html

You can read it at your own pace. I'm an unqualified layman and a practising snooker player, by the way, for what it's worth.

There's none so queer as folk, apparently.

[QUOTE]http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1432972,00.html
QUOTE]

Ohhhh.....my gosh!

quote:

Originally posted by starbuck:
Obviously you could be deliberately stirring it, EW, but you may find the following of interest:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1432972,00.html

You can read it at your own pace. I'm an unqualified layman and a practising snooker player, by the way, for what it's worth.

There's none so queer as folk, apparently.

Yes, I've seen that before. I think in some species (where mechanics and other ethological issues are at play) nature just sets them up to fuck. ANYTHING and in ANY way. Not much more to it than that. And the heterosexual couplings (of which statistically there should be plenty) produce offspring.

EW

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
Yes, I've seen that before. I think in some species (where mechanics and other ethological issues are at play) nature just sets them up to fuck. ANYTHING and in ANY way. Not much more to it than that. And the heterosexual couplings (of which statistically there should be plenty) produce offspring.

Of course the functions of sex go further than the production of offspring.

Sex is used as a source of pleasure, to build bonds within a relationship and also to maintain a balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches of the nervous system. It's also used to sell cars.

In Bonobo chimpanzee society sex is used as a tool of the social fabric and, I believe, homosexual behaviour is quite common amongst all primates, not just humans.

With the politicization of homosexuality, and the impressions we all receive through religion, psychology and the media, all we can do is to offer our opinions. We cannot possibly know what is 'natural' or not. However, if we believe that some people are born with a high degree of homosexuality, then surely it's natural behaviour for them.

Regards
Steve M

7V

Well said.

I'd go further though and propose that the use of 'what is natural' in this argument is entirely specious. What, for example, is natural about eating cooked food or wearing clothes?

Human sexuality is too frequently hijacked for polital, religious or psuedo-moral intent when arguments about what is right or wrong are used to make judgements about who is good or bad in society. Ultimately such thinking just makes people unhappy.

A person's sexuality is really only important if you want to have sex with them - otherwise it's about as significant as their star sign!

D

Dougunn

Spot on.

I find it sad that anyone can can condemn someone else because of their sexuality.

It really should be as daft as disliking someone who wears glasses.

Regards

Mick

quote:

I find it sad that anyone can can condemn someone else because of their sexuality.

It really should be as daft as disliking someone who wears glasses.

Regards

Mick

So you wear glasses then Mick

And yes you're correct we should never judge or condemn anyone on their sexuality, but such is human nature it happens to readily.

Regards
Clive

I'm short sighted and a Gemini.

Wanna make something of it?

quote:

I'm short sighted and a Gemini.

Wanna make something of it?

Oh No!! somebody who believes in Astrology, that's worth discrimination in itself

Regards
Clive

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
Yes, I've seen that before. I think in some species (where mechanics and other ethological issues are at play) nature just sets them up to fuck. ANYTHING and in ANY way. Not much more to it than that. And the heterosexual couplings (of which statistically there should be plenty) produce offspring.

Of course the functions of sex go further than the production of offspring.

Sex is used as a source of pleasure, to build bonds within a relationship and also to maintain a balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches of the nervous system. It's also used to sell cars.

In Bonobo chimpanzee society sex is used as a tool of the social fabric and, I believe, homosexual behaviour is quite common amongst all primates, not just humans.

With the politicization of homosexuality, and the impressions we all receive through religion, psychology and the media, all we can do is to offer our opinions. We cannot possibly know what is 'natural' or not. However, if we believe that some people are born with a high degree of homosexuality, then surely it's natural behaviour for them.

Regards
Steve M

Nicely put and nice thinking, but you are completely wrong.

Think about heritability. (The extent to which a trait is heritable - i.e. genetic rather than due to the environment - nature rather than nurture. A heritability factor of 1 = entirely genetic.) If you have a gene that causes you to "prefer" (excuse the euphemism!!) men over women, then you will not pass on that gene to progeny, because (as of last time I picked up a copy of the new scientist...! ) a man shagging another man up the bum don't produce no sprogs. So the "gay" gene is a deadend on the phylogenetic tree.

I am ignoring genetic aberrations.

In your discussion of sexual emotions, you mistake the survival advantage conferred up a family by a "love" instinct with something else. (In a nutshell, if parents lack a gene that causes them to "love" their kids, then the probability that said kids will die before reproducing is greatly increased - because they will not be fed and nurtured prior to maturity by their parents.)

And that's it. Nature is nature, other things are in some cases (how can I be delicate and PC and not offend the BBC...???!!!) er... not quite as "natural" as the Guardian would have you think!!

EW

Earwicker

If I understand you correctly you are proposing that only heterosexual sex is 'natural' since any other type would be phylogenetically pointless?

What, exactly, are the 'genetic aberrations' you ignore?

D