Varying levels of bisexual

[M&S 265]

One could easily take the term "bisexual" where ever it is found on this list and replace it with "homosexual" or "heterosexual". Every single member of this list has a counterpart in hetero or homosexuality. Apart from helping people to see that human sexuality is complicated and nuanced this list doesn't really point out any difference between homo or hetero sexuality other than the fact that bisexuals have sex with members of the same gender, while the other two have sex with the opposite gender.

 

I think this is a great point. Out of a legitimate fascination with bisexuality I think there may be a tendency to over-dissect and over-label. For many, I think sexuality and bisexuality is fluid and it more-of-than-not defies precise sub-categorization

[D&D 362]

Is a Str8 male who has sex with a man after 15 years of incarceration "Bi sexual" or Circumstantially Bisexual?

 

How likely is it he would have ever has sex, or desired to have sex with a male had these not been his circumstances?

 

"Why" always matters IMHO

 

This is a very good point that highlights the problem with these kinds of lists. This hypothetical man is just as circumstantially homosexual as he is circumstantially bisexual, unless of course the claim is that homo and hetero sexuality has no variation. We might also add that since he isn't always heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual he must be hetero transitional/bitransitional/homotransitional. So which is it? This is why getting so fine grained only adds confusion to an already confusing state of affairs.

[Partyperks847 123]

One could easily take the term "bisexual" where ever it is found on this list and replace it with "homosexual" or "heterosexual". Every single member of this list has a counterpart in hetero or homosexuality. Apart from helping people to see that human sexuality is complicated and nuanced this list doesn't really point out any difference between homo or hetero sexuality other than the fact that bisexuals have sex with members of the same gender, while the other two have sex with the opposite gender.

 

As I read it, each example examined degree, circumstance, equivocation and separated the act from the orientation, which IMO is the whole point.

[D&D 362]

As I read it, each example examined degree, circumstance, equivocation and separated the act from the orientation, which IMO is the whole point.

 

You are hung up on this orientation thing. Which is funny because that just makes my point easier to make. You seem to think that whatever your orientation is that is what it always was and always will be. The evidence points otherwise, unless you are going to make the further claim that the vast majority of people simply don't know what their orientation is until they are put in a particular situation. It's as though you can understand nuance in the act but not in orientation. The evidence regarding human sexuality is that orientation isn't static.

 

In any case, I can grant you the entire list of bisexual types, but then you would need to concede the point that every single one including the circumstantial type is bisexual. The list does not discriminate between orientation and act. It points out that any bisexual act is a case of bisexuality. It isn't equivocating on a term like you think. Not all bisexuals are circumstantial bisexual, but according this list all circumstantial bisexuals are bisexuals. No where in this list does it claim that you can do a bisexual act and not be bisexual, except for maybe the transitional type.

 

Lastly, and this point seems to really be lost in the clutter is that this list could just as well describe heterosexuality or homosexuality as it does bisexuality. (actually M&S said this very well) What I mean here is that this list only discriminates between any orientation on the basis of the two genders involved, not on the basis of that orientation or what kind of relationship is desired. Many of the types listed are completely ambiguous between all three orientations. This isn't in any way, shape, or form, saying that bisexuality isn't complicated, rather it's only pointing out that human sexuality is complicated and any time you start to put down a list like this it has very limited to no value as a tool to define sexual orientation.

[Hippiegirlie 276]

Why I hate labels and titles:

 

Titles and labels are completely meaningless other than to the person who interprets the title or label for themselves. Since each label is assigned a meaning that is only truly interpreted by that person, no label has a set value to the general population. The only purpose is to help categorize interpretation for others. Only by bringing meaning to action will it be understood and transferred and even then, the transfer of information is still open to the assigned meaning of the witness. For categorization, I label myself bisexual because I am a human who has sex with other humans of more than one gender. If you want a correct label, the take a few minutes and spell out particulars... or better yet, state your comfort levels and forget the label all together.

[sparkstar 128]

I tell people I'm straight, 100% straight at that.

 

Up until I was about 27 (I'm 31), i was horrified at the thought of even touching another man during something like a MFM threesome. Since the age of 16 when i saw a porn video of a gangbang, I've had a fascination with gangbangs. Then when I was 27 I went to one, expecting to just watch and participate 1 on 1 with the woman when other men were resting.

 

Since then Ive done all sorts of things in gangbangs and MFM. Things like my balls rubbing another man's balls while DP'ing her. I don't get any thrill or turn-on from the rubbing, the turn-on is knowing she is loving the experience and I'm happy to help her out with doing something so kinky like that is for her. Most women don't like the idea of a MFM threesome, which fuels my love for women who do like doing it.

 

I've never fancied, kissed, or sexually deliberately touched a man, it makes me sick. Yet at the previous gangbang I went to about a year ago with 25 or so men and one girl (now bear in mind I absolutely love and adore kissing, if my cock feels like it's going soft during sex then a kiss will grow it back hard again) I was on top of this girl and she was on her back while she was sucking two cocks one at a time, and both came into her mouth. She always swallowed, and maybe 10 seconds after i noticed her swallow i just REALLY wanted to kiss her just because i love kissing, but I didn't want to kiss her because of the thought of all the trace amounts of other men's sperm being in her mouth. I thought f**k it - I'm probably going to regret this... I'm going for it. Then we kissed, and when I stopped she was surprised I did that (as was I), and surprisingly, I couldn't taste anything different. so I was happy about that lol, and continued fucking her while she carried on giving blowjobs to other men.

 

So, I still think I'm 100% straight. I didn't kiss her for the taste of male cum (turns my stomach even describing it), I just really wanted to kiss her.

[Partyperks847 123]

You are hung up on this orientation thing. Which is funny because that just makes my point easier to make. You seem to think that whatever your orientation is that is what it always was and always will be. The evidence points otherwise, unless you are going to make the further claim that the vast majority of people simply don't know what their orientation is until they are put in a particular situation. It's as though you can understand nuance in the act but not in orientation. The evidence regarding human sexuality is that orientation isn't static.

 

In any case, I can grant you the entire list of bisexual types, but then you would need to concede the point that every single one including the circumstantial type is bisexual. The list does not discriminate between orientation and act. It points out that any bisexual act is a case of bisexuality. It isn't equivocating on a term like you think. Not all bisexuals are circumstantial bisexual, but according this list all circumstantial bisexuals are bisexuals. No where in this list does it claim that you can do a bisexual act and not be bisexual, except for maybe the transitional type.

 

Lastly, and this point seems to really be lost in the clutter is that this list could just as well describe heterosexuality or homosexuality as it does bisexuality. (actually M&S said this very well) What I mean here is that this list only discriminates between any orientation on the basis of the two genders involved, not on the basis of that orientation or what kind of relationship is desired. Many of the types listed are completely ambiguous between all three orientations. This isn't in any way, shape, or form, saying that bisexuality isn't complicated, rather it's only pointing out that human sexuality is complicated and any time you start to put down a list like this it has very limited to no value as a tool to define sexual orientation.

You are hung up on this orientation thing. Which is funny because that just makes my point easier to make. You seem to think that whatever your orientation is that is what it always was and always will be. The evidence points otherwise, unless you are going to make the further claim that the vast majority of people simply don't know what their orientation is until they are put in a particular situation. It's as though you can understand nuance in the act but not in orientation. The evidence regarding human sexuality is that orientation isn't static.

 

To the contrary, some people may NEVER act out within their inborn orientation.

The reasons for this range from social injunction to religion to culture.

On the other hand, many people day trip or even embrace extraorentive activity, in fact this was the case with the majority of non Heterosexuals pre stonewall.

Were 300 generations of homosexuals, transsexuals, pansexuals and every variation of bisexuals actually STRAIGHT because they exclusively engaged in straight sex? I think not

 

 

The question I always ask srt8 people who take your position is....

At what point in your life did you "decide" to be straight, and was it a tough decision?

After all, the word "decide" by it's nature indicates that they could have gone in any direction, and at least considered others

I have never gotten a real answer...ever

Why?

Because in order to answer, they would have to claim all orientations are decided upon, EXCEPT exclusive Heterosexuality, which even they realize is anti logical

 

No matter how you slice it, nurture can alter behavior, but it can't over ride nature, and nature was not so accommodating as to separate us all into only 3 categories

[D&D 362]

To the contrary, some people may NEVER act out within their inborn orientation.

The reasons for this range from social injunction to religion to culture.

On the other hand, many people day trip or even embrace extraorentive activity, in fact this was the case with the majority of non Heterosexuals pre stonewall.

Were 300 generations of homosexuals, transsexuals, pansexuals and every variation of bisexuals actually STRAIGHT because they exclusively engaged in straight sex? I think not

 

 

The question I always ask srt8 people who take your position is....

At what point in your life did you "decide" to be straight, and was it a tough decision?

After all, the word "decide" by it's nature indicates that they could have gone in any direction, and at least considered others

I have never gotten a real answer...ever

Why?

Because in order to answer, they would have to claim all orientations are decided upon, EXCEPT exclusive Heterosexuality, which even they realize is anti logical

 

No matter how you slice it, nurture can alter behavior, but it can't over ride nature, and nature was not so accommodating as to separate us all into only 3 categories

 

Actually that is a very weird question to ask.... Although I know many people who have been asked when they realized that they were X. It's kind of like you think that if it is nurture then we all just one day decide to be X. Those that argue that nurture plays a role certainly don't think that we just decide to be whatever. That question doesn't have anything to do with the debate between nature vs nurture. Furthermore many people don't know what they are and many go through a period of exploration before they come to realize what they are. But this doesn't answer the debate about nature vs nurture anyway. As both leave it completely open as to whether or not a person knows what they prefer or whether they can answer the question.

 

You are a incorrect about nurture not being able to override nature: it does so all the time. In fact that is one reason psychologists are gainfully employed: most often to get our nurture undone and sometimes to correct our nature. it's also what enables us to have civilized society.... Sorry to break it to you but a lot of your nature was overridden by your upbringing and your current peers.

 

Most importantly, this hang up about nature vs nurture is really a red herring. It doesn't have anything to do with the question regarding levels of bisexuality. Whether is nature, nurture or both we would still have the very same question.

 

So maybe what I should do is just answer the OP's question:

I think that there are levels of bisexuality just like I think there are levels of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Any attempt to try to get a detailed definition or working model of human sexuality beyond that is bound to fail because at that level it isn't general, it's individual. A example of the failure of this attempt is the list presented: some on that list are completely ambitious between any of the general sexual preferences. I.e. circumstantial bi = circumstantial hetero= circumstantial homosexual

[Partyperks847 123]

Actually that is a very weird question to ask.... Although I know many people who have been asked when they realized that they were X. It's kind of like you think that if it is nurture then we all just one day decide to be X. Those that argue that nurture plays a role certainly don't think that we just decide to be whatever. That question doesn't have anything to do with the debate between nature vs nurture. Furthermore many people don't know what they are and many go through a period of exploration before they come to realize what they are. But this doesn't answer the debate about nature vs nurture anyway. As both leave it completely open as to whether or not a person knows what they prefer or whether they can answer the question.

 

Why is it a weird question to ask?

If indeed orientation is a decision, straight people must have made that decision at some point, and like every decision, it must have involved considering alternatives. So at some point an internal conscious mental conflict must have taken place

That is implicit and undeniable logic, yet I have yet to hear a single straight male who claims orientation is not born acknowledge it.

Why?

Because it never happened, and if it did, the outcome was already predisposed

 

You are a incorrect about nurture not being able to override nature: it does so all the time. In fact that is one reason psychologists are gainfully employed: most often to get our nurture undone and sometimes to correct our nature. it's also what enables us to have civilized society.... Sorry to break it to you but a lot of your nature was overridden by your upbringing and your current peers.

Methinks you mistake societal stigma and social injunction creating a different behavior with it actually changing one's nature (Ever hear the story of the scorpion and the frog?)

 

Most importantly, this hang up about nature vs nurture is really a red herring. It doesn't have anything to do with the question regarding levels of bisexuality. Whether is nature, nurture or both we would still have the very same question.

I will point out again, the question was overtly moot until a relatively short time ago. I will again use my life partner as an example; she LEARNED Pansexuality growing up in a rural town of 3000 pre-internet? How, when and from whom exactly?

 

So maybe what I should do is just answer the OP's question:

I think that there are levels of bisexuality just like I think there are levels of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Any attempt to try to get a detailed definition or working model of human sexuality beyond that is bound to fail because at that level it isn't general, it's individual. A example of the failure of this attempt is the list presented: some on that list are completely ambitious between any of the general sexual preferences. I.e. circumstantial bi = circumstantial hetero= circumstantial homosexual

 

I think the observation of the variables are in a zygote stage. Kinsey did the best he could with the information he had available and made some very good points, but he missed a lot as well.

 

The problem is you have stated that a bi sexual act is a bi sexual act, so how do you reconcile that with "degrees of heterosexuality"?

I would suggest that what you call degrees of heterosexuality, are actually the sub orientations within bi sexuality you deny are valid.

 

This by the way, is a GREAT, well thought out, super informative discussion...I hope you are accepting my discourse in the civil way it is intended, and I hope others see it that way as well

[D&D 362]

Why is it a weird question to ask?

If indeed orientation is a decision, straight people must have made that decision at some point, and like every decision, it must have involved considering alternatives. So at some point an internal conscious mental conflict must have taken place

That is implicit and undeniable logic, yet I have yet to hear a single straight male who claims orientation is not born acknowledge it.

Why?

Because it never happened, and if it did, the outcome was already predisposed

 

Why is it a decision? Who ever claimed it was a decision? I never did? This was my point about it being a wierd question in this context? Who decides to be homo, hetero, or bi? I've never heard anybody say I decided to be blanksexual. I have heard people say they were willing to try something and see if they like it, but not I just decided that I was X. Probably explains why you can't get an answer. Someone who argues that it is nature would point out that you no more decide your sexuality as you decide who your parents were or what town you were born in. You don't just decide, your parents don't just decide, your genes don't just decide, your society doesn't just decide... it's a combination of all that determining what you are.

 

Methinks you mistake societal stigma and social injunction creating a different behavior with it actually changing one's nature (Ever hear the story of the scorpion and the frog?)

 

My point had nothing to do with social stigma or social injunction and more than it had to do with social approval.... it had to do with the plain fact that peoples parents, society, affect how, and what we each desire/prefer. Much of what modern psychology/psychotherapy is about "fixing" people even where there is no social stigma or social injunction. But that doesn't matter as the fact is that social stigma and social injunction play a huge role in developing human sexuality.

 

I will point out again, the question was overtly moot until a relatively short time ago. I will again use my life partner as an example; she LEARNED Pansexuality growing up in a rural town of 3000 pre-internet? How, when and from whom exactly?

 

What... i think it's obviously clear that her DNA is coded for Pansexualilty (insert sarcasm)... really this question doesn't point out anything besides there is a lot of variability even in small populations. you would have to ask a trained psychologist why an individual is the way they are. And i am pretty sure their answer would be quite a bit more detailed than it's the genes she was handed...

 

The problem is you have stated that a bi sexual act is a bi sexual act, so how do you reconcile that with "degrees of heterosexuality"?

I would suggest that what you call degrees of heterosexuality, are actually the sub orientations within bi sexuality you deny are valid.

 

Because bisexual has the same meaning/reference in both positions in the sentence... I used that sentence to point out that you were equivocating on the term, in the first part of the sentence using it to describe an act and in the second part using it to describe a preference. The way I said it is that by definition a bisexual act is a bisexual act. It's like saying 2+2=4. or all bachelors are unmarried men. I have made it clear to you that I don't think that just because a hetero person has sex with the same gender that they are bisexual. I don't know why you keep saying that I don't distinguish between an act and a preference.

 

Actually I think levels or degrees are too strong I think there is just a lot of variation. I can even agree with you some "levels of heterosexuality" might be better understood as kinds of bisexuality, but that only makes my point clearer that the definitions are contrived and for the most part useless because they don't really distinguish anything beyond pointing out that a person is selective about who they are attracted to. I can also imagine a person who I say is bicircumstantial rejoinding that I am wrong about them they are really homocircumstantial.

 

Of course I take this as civil discourse! What have either of us said that would be offensive to each other... just two guys who think they know everything, as my wife would say nothing new about that.

[Partyperks847 123]

Why is it a weird question to ask?

If indeed orientation is a decision, straight people must have made that decision at some point, and like every decision, it must have involved considering alternatives. So at some point an internal conscious mental conflict must have taken place

That is implicit and undeniable logic, yet I have yet to hear a single straight male who claims orientation is not born acknowledge it.

Why?

Because it never happened, and if it did, the outcome was already predisposed

 

Why is it a decision? Who ever claimed it was a decision? I never did? This was my point about it being a weird question in this context? Who decides to be homo, hetero, or bi? I've never heard anybody say i decided to be blanksexual. I have heard people say they were willing to try something and see if they like it, but not I just decided that I was X. Probably explains why you can't get an answer. someone who argues that it is nature would point out that you no more decide your sexuality as you decide who your parents were or what town you were born in. You don't just decide, your parents don't just decide, your genes don't just decide, your society doesn't just decide... it's a combination of all that determining what you are.

 

Methinks you mistake societal stigma and social injunction creating a different behavior with it actually changing one's nature (Ever hear the story of the scorpion and the frog?)

 

my point had nothing to do with social stigma or social injunction and more than it had to do with social approval.... it had to do with the plain fact that peoples parents, society, affect how, and what we each desire/prefer. Much of what modern psychology/psychotherapy is about "fixing" people even where there is no social stigma or social injunction. But that doesn't matter as the fact is that social stigma and social injunction play a huge role in developing human sexuality.

 

I will point out again, the question was overtly moot until a relatively short time ago. I will again use my life partner as an example; she LEARNED Pansexuality growing up in a rural town of 3000 pre-internet? How, when and from whom exactly?

 

What... I think it's obviously clear that her DNA is coded for Pansexualilty (insert sarcasm)... really this question doesn't point out anything besides there is a lot of variability even in small populations. you would have to ask a trained psychologist why an individual is the way they are. And i am pretty sure their answer would be quite a bit more detailed than it's the genes she was handed...

 

The problem is you have stated that a bi sexual act is a bi sexual act, so how do you reconcile that with "degrees of heterosexuality"?

I would suggest that what you call degrees of heterosexuality, are actually the sub orientations within bi sexuality you deny are valid.

 

Because bisexual has the same meaning/reference in both positions in the sentence... I used that sentence to point out that you were equivocating on the term, in the first part of the sentence using it to describe an act and in the second part using it to describe a preference. The way I said it is that by definition a bisexual act is a bisexual act. It's like saying 2+2=4. or all bachelors are unmarried men. I have made it clear to you that I don't think that just because a hetero person has sex with the same gender that they are bisexual. I don't know why you keep saying that I don't distinguish between an act and a preference.

 

Actually I think levels or degrees are too strong i think there is just a lot of variation. I can even agree with you some "levels of heterosexuality" might be better understood as kinds of bisexuality, but that only makes my point clearer that the definitions are contrived and for the most part useless because they don't really distinguish anything beyond pointing out that a person is selective about who they are attracted to. I can also imagine a person who I say is bicircumstantial rejoinding that I am wrong about them they are really homocircumstantial.

 

Of course I take this as civil discourse! What have either of us said that would be offensive to each other.... just two guys who think they know everything, as my wife would say nothing new about that.

 

In a nutshell....

 

Realize it or not, the entire basis of your contentions is that orientation is chosen. it is either chosen or predisposed, there is no real middle ground.

 

Social approval is simply the opposite of social stigma, you are simply saying the same thing I am, but on the opposite side of a coin.

 

Not that I think Psychiatric evaluation is a pseudo science, but be give the genetic code over subjective theory any day, especially since the notion of environmental factors are what keep the mental hygiene industry in business.

And yes, I believe there are Pansexual genes, and genes that dictate the entire spectrum

Again, my life partner did not "learn" Pansexuality at the firehouse picnic...she never met a person of color till age 14, a gay person till her late 20s, and never personally met a transsexual till her 30s, yet fantasized about all of them from the age of 11.

 

I think we are close to total agreement on the variable Herero/Variable Bi thing.....I think we are at the Endive vs Ondeve stage

 

I am pleased you take this as civil discourse...not everyone does. Again, I thank you for what has so far been a great exchange of ideas.

[D&D 362]

In a nutshell....

 

Realize it or not, the entire basis of your contentions is that orientation is chosen. it is either chosen or predisposed, there is no real middle ground

 

Social approval is simply the opposite of social stigma, you are simply saying the same thing I am, but on the opposite side of a coin.

 

Not that I think Psychiatric evaluation is a pseudo science, but be give the genetic code over subjective theory any day, especially since the notion of environmental factors are what keep the mental hygiene industry in business

And yes, I believe there are Pansexual genes, and genes that dictate the entire spectrum

Again, my life partner did not "learn" Pansexuality at the firehouse picnic...she never met a person of color till age 14, a gay person till her late 20s, and never personally met a transsexual till her 30s, yet fantasized about all of them from the age of 11.

 

I think we are close to total agreement on the variable Herero/Variable Bi thing.....I think we are at the Endive vs Ondeve stage

 

I am pleased you take this as civil discourse...not everyone does. Again, I thank you for what has so far been a great exchange of ideas

 

You've changed the debate and offered me what you think are "two horns of a dilemma: but as is the case with most dilemmas there are many other distinct options. "nature vs nurture" is not a synonymous comparison to "predisposed vs chosen." I have absolutely no idea how these would even be similar. "nurture" doesn't imply choosing any more than "nature" implies choosing. Just to be clear: In the context of sexual orientation "nurture" is not a synonym of "choose", "choice" or "decide." "nurture" is a term that catches your social context from birth to current. A nurturist would argue that your social context is what determines your sexual orientation. They would also agree that your genetic code obviously plays a necessary and sometimes sufficient role in determining sexual orientation. After all, your genetic structure is part of the social construct. The "naturists" on the other hand, makes the claim that genetic code is necessary and sufficient for determining sexual orientation. As you can see neither the naturist nor the nurturist imply anything about choosing. I also think that this shows why the naturist position is untenable, it ignores the obvious role society plays. The "either or" you present to me isn't an "either or" it's at least an "either or, or". No one on this thread or any other about this topic on this board claims that orientation is chosen.

 

I see now why you think I'm wrong... but I'm not making that argument. So I agree with what you say regarding the argument I didn't make. It is downright silly to think that we just decide to be X-sexual. It's very easy to show an argument wrong when no one is making that argument----it's called a "straw man." Now you may address the points what I actually argued...

 

I still don't know why you think this is relevant to the discussion of levels of bisexuality. Even if I say you are correct, that I am taking the crazy a position you think I am taking, and say that orientation is chosen rather than decreed by nature, it still has nothing to do with the question regarding levels of bisexuality. The whole discussion regarding nature, nurture, choice, doesn't enlighten the question about levels of bisexuality or of any other sexuality. Whether you choose, or whether it was determined by the genes you got from your parents, whether it's determined by nurture, or some combination of all of these, doesn't make any difference as to whether or not there are levels of bisexuality. We would still have the debate regarding the need for levels of bisexuality regardless of whether it caused by nature, nurture or choice. If it were at some time in future proved that orientation was chosen we would still have this exact same question as posed by the OP. In that Hypothetical, we would just say you have to choose what "level" you prefer.

[Partyperks847 123]

You've changed the debate and offered me what you think are "two horns of a dilemma: but as is the case with most dilemmas there are many other distinct options. "nature vs nurture" is not a synonymous comparison to "predisposed vs chosen." I have absolutely no idea how these would even be similar. "nurture" doesn't imply choosing any more than "nature" implies choosing. Just to be clear: In the context of sexual orientation "nurture" is not a synonym of "choose", "choice" or "decide." "nurture" is a term that catches your social context from birth to current. A nurturist would argue that your social context is what determines your sexual orientation. They would also agree that your genetic code obviously plays a necessary and sometimes sufficient role in determining sexual orientation. After all, your genetic structure is part of the social construct. The "naturists" on the other hand, makes the claim that genetic code is necessary and sufficient for determining sexual orientation. As you can see neither the naturist nor the nurturist imply anything about choosing. I also think that this shows why the naturist position is untenable, it ignores the obvious role society plays. The "either or" you present to me isn't an "either or" it's at least an "either or, or". No one on this thread or any other about this topic on this board claims that orientation is chosen.

 

I see now why you think I'm wrong... but I'm not making that argument. So I agree with what you say regarding the argument I didn't make. It is downright silly to think that we just decide to be X-sexual. It's very easy to show an argument wrong when no one is making that argument----it's called a "straw man." Now you may address the points what I actually argued....

 

I still don't know why you think this is relevant to the discussion of levels of bisexuality. Even if I say you are correct, that I am taking the crazy a position you think I am taking, and say that orientation is chosen rather than decreed by nature, it still has nothing to do with the question regarding levels of bisexuality. The whole discussion regarding nature, nurture, choice, doesn't enlighten the question about levels of bisexuality or of any other sexuality. Whether you choose, or whether it was determined by the genes you got from your parents, whether it's determined by nurture, or some combination of all of these, doesn't make any difference as to whether or not there are levels of bisexuality. We would still have the debate regarding the need for levels of bisexuality regardless of whether it caused by nature, nurture or choice. If it were at some time in future proved that orientation was chosen we would still have this exact same question as posed by the OP. In that Hypothetical, we would just say you have to choose what "level" you prefer.

 

Indeed I was under the impression you were espousing at least in part, the "sexual preference is a choice" .Now that I understand that is not the basis of your contention, what you say make a lot more sense. If I have a bit of a quick trigger finger in mistaking reasonable contentions for those of reactionaries, please accept my apologies... "Tis the season" so to speak, but nuff said on that

 

Having said that however, I am still in the predisposition camp. It is simply something I have come to firmly believe.

I have simply seen too many cases in which the nanosecond someone has the opportunity to express themselves as they choose devoid of societal stigma and social injunction, they have embraced it in such a way where clearly it has been a life long aspiration.

Nothing magic happened after Stonewall, except the stigma and social injunction subsided, and nature conquered nurture in a HUGE way, and has ever since

 

I guess the final question is, does it matter? Do we need to micro classify each variation of orientation?

I guess at the end of the day WE don't, but possible those who identify themselves as such, DO.

 

Another poster cited "hating the label" and "leaving themselves an out" several times, and did so in a snarky judgmental way in which he implied that is a negative thing

I disagree.

Speaking only for myself, were I by my OWN self image, (the only one that really matters) heteroflexible, I too would "hate" the "Bi Sexual" label and HELL yes, It would give me "an out" should a past or potential male partner desire my attention, on a day I was feeling less flexible. IMHO there is NOTHING wrong with that, so long as it is expressed in sphere of honestly and self image and respect.

 

These are the reasons why I am open friendly and accepting of the bi sexual multiple choice labels, and those which exist outside the S B G perimeters.

[D&D 362]

Indeed I was under the impression you were espousing at least in part, the "sexual preference is a choice" .Now that I understand that is not the basis of your contention, what you say make a lot more sense. If I have a bit of a quick trigger finger in mistaking reasonable contentions for those of reactionaries, please accept my apologies.... "Tis the season" so to speak, but nuff said on that

 

Having said that however, I am still in the predisposition camp. It is simply something I have come to firmly believe.

I have simply seen too many cases in which the nanosecond someone has the opportunity to express themselves as they choose devoid of societal stigma and social injunction, they have embraced it in such a way where clearly it has been a life long aspiration.

Nothing magic happened after Stonewall, except the stigma and social injunction subsided, and nature conquered nurture in a HUGE way, and has ever since

 

I guess the final question is, does it matter? Do we need to micro classify each variation of orientation?

I guess at the end of the day WE don't, but possible those who identify themselves as such, DO.

 

Another poster cited "hating the label" and "leaving themselves an out" several times, and did so in a snarky judgmental way in which he implied that is a negative thing

I disagree.

Speaking only for myself, were I by my OWN self image, (the only one that really matters) heteroflexible, I too would "hate" the "Bi Sexual" label and HELL yes, It would give me "an out" should a past or potential male partner desire my attention, on a day I was feeling less flexible. IMHO there is NOTHING wrong with that, so long as it is expressed in sphere of honestly and self image and respect.

 

These are the reasons why I am open friendly and accepting of the bi sexual multiple choice labels, and those which exist outside the S B G perimeters

 

Are we agreeing? I am very confused when it comes to agreement, LOL

[Sirramm 111]

I consider, or label, myself as an 'orally only bisexual male’, it is MY desire (AKA choice!). I am not at all attracted to men; meaning I do not look at them and desire 'them' as a man, nor do I want to give or receive anal with another male, but have him drop his pants, get hard, and now HE has my attention. I do not want or desire to be ‘intimate’ with a male in any other way than swapping blowjobs. However, with that said has the ‘fantasy’ ever flashed through my mind of anal, etc.? Yeah! Sure, it has! That is where and how I separate fantasy and desire. I desire sucking a guy’s dick and eating his cum in reality but my fantasies and thoughts of those other situations will NEVER in my life occur simply because I don’t desire them to nor do I want them to be more than just fantasies. Sometimes fantasies are just better off staying as fantasies vs. realities.

 

My desire to be orally bi waxes and wanes just like anything else in my life. Hey sometimes I like to ride my bicycle and sometimes I prefer to drive my car. It is simply about choices and the heat of the moment. There were times in my past, before my opening up to my bi-ness, that I use to like watching my ex-wife with other men and NEVER gave a thought of sucking him clean or eating her out after he came inside her. Now however! Well I’m sure you can see the picture here. So far my current wife and I have yet to explore my desires or hers but we are working on it and like me her ‘desires/choices’ come and go as well. I think it’s pretty much normal and to be honest wouldn’t change a thing!

[oc1234 430]

Sirramm, That pretty much describes me too. For the last decade or so, we have done mainly threesomes with our best male friend. And the threesomes always involves some male-male oral play. On occasion my wife meets him alone for some playtime, but not that often these days. I also sometimes meet him for some oral male-male play too. I really enjoy having him cum in my mouth, but, while he sucks me, he will always makes me cum with his hands. The fact he never has me cum in his mouth is fine with me since I have always found it almost impossible to cum from oral sex only, and that goes also for oral sex from a woman.

 

Neither my friend or I are attracted to males, but we both enjoy watching other men play, and we have on occasion played with each while his webcam is on and other people are watching.

[Sirramm 111]

I'm so with you OC...it's odd that when you mention you are bi, as a male, suddenly the sound of doors slamming is so prolific! I read, on a previous post (long story) that bi males in the swing world are frowned upon! I MEAN REALLY!!! WTF here!?!?!?! I've had previous 'experiences' (albeit limited) but if a woman can be bi and it is TOTALLY accepted and the NORM then why is there such a great leap of faith that a guy, and his woman, are ok with it and it isn't the 'norm'? I mean come on for crying out loud it's just freakin' sex people!

 

Look my take is this: If you'll kiss a woman after she sucked a cock...guess what you just tasted one vicariously so you may as well suck one yourself...trust me it isn't that bad! If you ever have gone down on a woman after a dick has been in her...guess what!?!?! You got it same thing applies! I don't like guys unless I'm beating them at golf, working on the lawn (which btw I have a BEAUTIFUL lawn!!! and yes my neighbors hate me and I love it!) or I'm sucking the flavor of a woman off of them and then I'm happy and love them.

 

Too each his own and we ALL should get that but damn if I'm going to ask my wife to suck and fuck some other dude and swallow/accept his cum then damn as a REAL man I should be able to do the same!

 

Just my thought! Don't hate....

[M1F2KTJ 470]

You're making my head spin. Different levels of bi?